Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of fruits. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed a best judgement assessment as the assessee failed to comply with notices issued under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Act. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act.
Held
The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, without considering the fact that the assessee was suffering from cervical spondylitis and intervertebral disc prolapse, and was under treatment during the relevant period. This submission was not controverted by the revenue.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was leviable despite the assessee suffering from a serious medical condition preventing compliance.
Sections Cited
271(1)(b), 144, 148, 142(1), 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., 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 [CIT(A)] dated 16.06.2025 confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") of Rs. 20,000/-.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is and individual engaged in the business of dealing in fruits. No return of income u/s. Viswanathapillai Saranyadevi 139(1) of the Act was filed by the appellant. A notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant and also notice u/s. 148 and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the appellant which remained uncomplied with. In the circumstances, the AO passed best judgement assessment u/s. 144 of the Act vide order dated 04.03.2024. For failure to comply with the said notices, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act vide order dated 10.09.2024.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty in the absence of any reasonable cause.
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.
From the order of the CIT(A) it is clear that the appellant was suffering from cervical spondylitis and intervertebral disc prolapse and was under treatment from 30.03.2024 to 09.08.2024. The CIT(A), while confirming the levy of penalty had not taken into consideration this fact and merely confirmed the levy of penalty. The submission of the appellant that she was suffering from cervical spondylitis was not controverted by the assessing authorities as well as the CIT(A). Therefore, it is not a fit case to levy penalty.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th August, 2025.