Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, failed to file a return of income for AY 2019-20. A return was later filed in response to a notice u/s 148 disclosing income. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271B for the delay in submitting the Tax Audit Report, which was confirmed by the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) had discussed penalty under section 272(1)(d) without considering the facts of the present case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to NFAC for fresh disposal.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty levied under section 271B was justified, and if the NFAC's order properly considered the facts of the case.
Sections Cited
271B, 148, 272(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 26.06.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act").
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No return of income was filed for AY 2019-20. Subsequently the appellant filed return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 21.03.2023 disclosing income of Rs. 2,45,080/-. However, Pallathoor Kumaran Binu the AO issued show cause notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271B initiating penalty proceedings. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant filed explanation stating that the delay in submitting the Tax Audit Report was not intentional. The same was because of lack of knowledge, etc. However, the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- vide order dated 03.09.2024 passed u/s. 271B of the Act.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.
At the outset, we find that the NFAC had discussed the levy of penalty u/s. 272(1)(d) of the Act without discussing the facts of the present case. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of NFAC for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.