Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was preferred against an order confirming a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was levied due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices under Section 142(1) on various occasions.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) and there could be valid reasons for non-response, such as reliance on a tax advisor. The Tribunal found that the AO had not sufficiently established that the assessee was actually served with the notices.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was warranted due to non-response to notices, when the assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte and service of notice was not conclusively proven.
Sections Cited
271(1)(b), 142(1), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, HON’BLE
ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]: The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assesseeagainst the orders dated21.02.2018, by Ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi, u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. None appeared from the assessee side therefore, we decided to proceed ahead ex-parte with the assistance of the ld DR. We heard the Ld. DR at length and perused the case record.
1 | P a g e 3254_DEL_2018_Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt Ltd 3. The sole issue for consideration is the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The penalty was levied on the assessee on account of the fact that the assesee did not respond to notice u/s 142(1) on various occasions. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty on account on non- compliance of the AR.
We find that the assessee’s appeal against the penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) ex-parte. We are of the considered view that there could be several grounds for non-response of the assesseesuch as dependency on a tax advisor who failed to provide necessary guidance. We find that though the assessee officer has mentioned various opportunities afforded to the assessee for submitting explanation, he has not mentioned that the assessee was actually served with such notices or the assessee was served with such notices.
Considering the factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in the instant case, is not warranted. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(b).