RAJYESHWAR RETAIL TRADE SYSTEMS PVT LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Page 1 of 8
आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Rajyeshwar
Retail
Trade
Systems Pvt. Ltd.,
GR-76,
Harmony
Commercial,
C-Wing
Near
Motilal Nagar Goregoan (W)
बनाम/
Vs.
ACIT Central-2
Bhopal
(Assessee/Appellant)
(Revenue/Respondent)
PAN: AAECR4394M
Assessee by Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, AR
Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing
05.08.2025
Date of Pronouncement
07.08.2025
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee Under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by order in first appeal No: CIT(A)-3, Bhopal/IT/10835/2014-15
dated 29.11.2024 passed by he Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The Rajyeshwar Retail Trade Systems Pvt. Ltd.
A.Y. 2015-16
Page 2 of 8
relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX
2.1
That as and by way of an order u/s 27 1(1)(b) of the Act, a penalty of Rs.10,000/-[ Ten thousand only] was imposed on the assessee, as the assessee had committed the default within the meaning of section 271(1)(b) of the Act by not furnishing its return of income on or before the due date for A.Y.2015-16. That the aforesaid order bears number:-ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2020-
21/1031913932(1) and that the same is dated 30.03.2021 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Penalty Order”.
2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Penalty
Order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act, before the Ld.
CIT(A) who by the “Impugned order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein.
The core ground & reason for dismissal of the first appeal was as under in the Impugned Order:-
“4.DECISION

Rajyeshwar Retail Trade Systems Pvt. Ltd.
A.Y. 2015-16
Page 3 of 8
4.1. Ground No.1 to 2. I have considered the penalty order, issues involved in assessment and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant against the penalty order. In this case penalty of a sum of Rs.
10,000/- was levied on appellant u/s 271(1)(b) of the 'Act'. During the assessment proceedings it has been observed that the assessee did not comply to the notices and did not furnish any reply despite of numerous opportunities provided to the appellant. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice under section 148 of the 'Act' and levied penalty of amount Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b)of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16. 4.1.2. On perusal of assessment records, I find that during the assessment proceedings, the appellant always failed to comply the notices issued to him. As per record, several opportunities have been given to the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Further, the Ld. AO has passed the assessment order u/s147 r.w.s 144 of the I.T.Act which proves that the appellant was provided ample opportunities to substantiate its claim, however, despite several opportunities being granted from time to time, there has been absolutely no compliance on the part of the appellant to give detailed explanation regarding grounds of appeal taken for the year under consideration. The appellant's overall attitude towards compliance during assessment as well as penalty proceeding has been absolute non compliance. It is very unreasonable that repeatedly the appellant prefers not to comply the notices issued by the Assessing Officer.
Accordingly, the plea of the appellant that penalty levied u/s271(1)(b) for the A.Y. under consideration without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard is not sustainable and therefore, the claim of the appellant on these grounds are not acceptable.
4.1.3 In view of above discussions, I find no merit on the grounds raised by the appellant. Therefore, the levying of the above penalty is fully justified and proper and in accordance with the provisions made under the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal on ground no.1 to 2
are dismissed.
4.1.4. Ground No. 3:- Being general in nature, this ground does not require any specific adjudication.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”
2.3. That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order”
has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and Rajyeshwar Retail Trade Systems Pvt. Ltd.
A.Y. 2015-16
Page 4 of 8
has raised following grounds of appeal in form no.36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:-
“1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A)-3,
Bhopal has erred in confirming the penalty levied by Ld. AO amounting to Rs.
10,000 U/s 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO has erred in passing and Ld. CIT (A)-3, Bhopal has erred in confirming the impugned order without affording any opportunity of being heard against the principles of natural justice.
3. That the assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
3. Record of Hearing
3.1
That the hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 05.08.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and interalia contended that the “Impugned Order” is illegal, bad in law, and not proper. It thus deserves to be set aside by this Tribunal in exercise of it’s
Appellate Power. The Ld. AR has placed on record of this Tribunal a paper book containing pages 1 to 8. Basis paper book page-1 it was contended that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was dated 20.03.2020 and that the assessee was called upon to file a return of income within 7 days from service of notice. Basis
PB page -2 it was contended that it was a notice u/s 142(1) of the Rajyeshwar Retail Trade Systems Pvt. Ltd.
A.Y. 2015-16
Page 5 of 8
Act dated 27.02.2021 wherein the assessee was called upon file return of income for A.Y.2015-16. Basis this notice dated
27.02.2021 it was contended by the Ld. AR that the assessee cannot be called u/s 142(1) of the Act to file ROI as section 142(1) contemplates several compliance to be made by the assessee as specified in notice. The Ld. AR then invited our attention to “Impugned Penalty Order” wherein it was recorded that a show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b) was issued to the assessee on 08.02.2021 were as in reality, no such show cause notice was issued to the assessee. The Ld. AR invited our attention to page 8
of the PB wherein there was no attachment in respect of notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. It was urged that on page 8 notice is missing, hence no notice was received by the assessee as is recorded in the “Impugned
Penalty
Order”.
Page
8
was downloaded from portal. Basis PB filed the Ld. AR contended that show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b) dated 08.02.2021 was not received by the assessee. Further, notice u/s 142(1) cannot be issued as intent and purpose of section is all together different and it not for filing return of income. Consequently, notice u/s 142(1) dated 27.02.2021 cannot be issued to file the return of Rajyeshwar Retail Trade Systems Pvt. Ltd.
A.Y. 2015-16
Page 6 of 8
income. It was also sought to be contended that once notice u/s 148
dated
20.03.2020
was issued for filing the ROI, the department of Income Tax cannot issue notice u/s 142(1) dated
27.02.2021 to file the return of income. Per contra the Ld. DR contended that the period which is being discussed is Covid-19
period and it was not possible for any one during covid-19 period to comply with any notice(s) issued by Income Tax Department hence no legal aspect be examined to this Ld. DR who appeared for Revenue fairly has concurred.
4. Observations & findings & conclusions
4.1
We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the “impugned order”
basis records of the case and the conentions canvassed before us.
4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case.
4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon examining the contentions are of the considered view that period of compliance u/s 148 dated 20.03.2020 i.e. within 7 days from date of receipt to file return of income falls within the first phase of Covid-19 with nation wise lockdown declared on 25.03.2020. Rajyeshwar Retail Trade Systems Pvt. Ltd.
A.Y. 2015-16
Page 7 of 8
Even the compliances u/s 142(1) notice dated 27.02.2021 i.e.
within 5 days from date of receipt to file return of income falls within
Covid-19
period.
Period of show cause notice dated
08.02.2021 u/s 271(1)(b) too falls under covid-19 period.
4.4 In view of aforesaid we hold that all notice(s) be it under section 148,142(1) and a show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b) (supra).
Pertained to Covid-19 period and to expect compliances on part of assessee by the department was not called for and for the assessee to do the due compliances was impossible. Therefore, under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the “Impugned Order and delete the penalty.
5. Order
5.1
In the result- Impugned order is set aside and Penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) upheld in the impugned order is deleted.

Rajyeshwar Retail Trade Systems Pvt. Ltd.
A.Y. 2015-16
Page 8 of 8
5.2 In view of the aforesaid the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 07.08.2025. (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक/Dated :
07/08/2025
Patel/Sr. PS
Copies to:
(1)
The appellant
(2)
The respondent
(3)
CIT
(4)
CIT(A)
(5)
Departmental Representative
(6)
Guard File
By order
UE COPY
Senior Private Secretary
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Indore Bench, Indore