MR DHANANJAY MAHADEO SONSURKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO/CIT (A), MUMBAI

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d), Section 142(1), Section 144, Section 273B

ITA 6044/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 January 2026AY 2019-204 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in not appreciating the reasons stated by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal considered the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the assessee's submission that he was a retired employee, not conversant with e-proceedings, and that the non-compliance was due to ignorance rather than deliberate defiance. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum assessment order had been set aside by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty was erroneous. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the appellate order. The specific finding on the first ground regarding the legality and jurisdiction of the CIT(A)'s order was implicitly addressed by setting aside the order based on the merits of the second ground.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mr. Dhananjay Mahadeo Sonsurkar, filed an appeal against the penalty order passed under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The penalty was levied for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act on August 4, 2023, and September 14, 2023. The assessment order was also passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act due to this non-compliance. The assessee contended that the non-compliance was not deliberate but due to miscommunication, lack of awareness of e-proceedings, and reasons beyond his control, invoking Section 273B. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] rejected these contentions, holding that the notices were ignored and no evidence of compliance was filed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law, illegal, and without jurisdiction, being arbitrary and perverse, and in breach of statutory provisions? 2. Whether the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- confirmed by the CIT(A) is justified, considering the assessee's claim that non-attendance and non-reply to notices under Section 142(1) were for reasons beyond his control and not deliberate, and that there was a reasonable cause in terms of Section 273B? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the non-compliance was not deliberate but due to ignorance and lack of familiarity with e-proceedings, as he is a retired employee with meager income and was not conversant with the department's digital communication methods. He claimed reasonable cause under Section 273B. The assessee also noted that the quantum assessment order was set aside by the CIT(A) and was pending adjudication by the AO afresh. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through the CIT DR, did not record specific arguments in the judgment, but the CIT(A)'s order, as narrated in the facts, indicated that the assessee had chosen to ignore statutory notices, resulting in non-compliance, and no evidence of compliance was filed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Mr. Prashant Ghumare,(virtually present)

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Hearing: 03.12.2025Pronounced: 16.01.2026

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 04.08.2025 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to penalty order passed u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 09.08.2024 for the Assessment

Year [A.Y.] 2019-20. Mr. Dhananjay Mahadeo Sonsurkar

The Revised grounds of appeal are as under:

THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION

1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, ['Ld. CIT (A)'] is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law.

2 Otherwise also, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order so framed by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law, illegal and void as the same is arbitrary and perverse.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE

Penalty levied of Rs 20,000/- The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty and failed to appreciate that the non attendance /non reply to the notices issued u/ 142(1) of the Act was for reasons beyond the control of the appellant and in any case not deliberate. There was reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Act.

Briefly stated facts on record are that penalty order passed in the case u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of notices issued u/s 142(1) on 04.08.2023 and 14.09.2023.The assessment order was also passed u/s 144 of the Act on account of non compliance during

assessment proceedings as well.

Before the lId.CIT(A), the assessee made a detailed submission claiming that the non compliance was not deliberate but due to mis-communication and lack of awareness of the e-proceedings

adopted by the Department. The ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee Mr. Dhananjay Mahadeo Sonsurkar

had chosen to ignore the statutory notices, thus, resulting in non- compliance. No evidence had been filed for the claim that any written submission was ever made before the Assessing Officer in compliance to notices under section 142(1). There was no reasonable ground for non-

compliance. Therefore, the penalty order was affirmed.

Before us, the ]1d-AR submitted that the ld.CIT(AQ did not appreciate the fact that there was no deliberate non compliance. The assessee is a retired employee of Otis Elevators since 2007 with meager income from bank interest etc and not liable to filing of return as the taxable income was below Rs. 2,50,000/- per annum. He was not very conversant with the e-communication mode of the Department. The non compliance was not deliberate but due to ignorance. Even the quantum assessment is stated to have been set aside by the ld.CIT(A) and is pending for adjudication by the AO afresh.

Considering the totality of the facts and the circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in not appreciating the reasons stated by the assessee before him during appellate proceedings. The appellate order is therefore, set aside allowing the grounds. Mr. Dhananjay Mahadeo Sonsurkar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16/01/2026. ANIKESH BANERJEE PRABHASH SHANKAR (arf wae / JUDICIAL MEMBER) (AGH AIAI/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Place: Has/Mumbai

feats /Date 16.01.2026 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno

aTeRT ot vrata omy ‘Copy of the Order forwarded to: tert / The Appellant

2 verelf The Respondent.

3 HURT AYE / crr

4 faurita ore, stay siete siftepx0r pr, rrat,

Mumbai

me wea / Guard file. Seanttet via ////

'/ BY ORDER,

SO /ASTTS THB (dy. /Asstt. Registrar) srry atte aif rat, Bench,