NANDIGHOSH SEOLF HELP SAVINGS GOOP LIMITED,PURI vs. ITO, PURI WARD, PURI, PURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 272/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 July 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 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 considered the rival submissions and found the assessee's explanation for non-representation to be plausible. Citing Section 273B of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming a penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee contended that their staff had limited computer knowledge, leading to non-representation before the CIT(A). The revenue argued that no evidence was produced to claim the penalty was arbitrary.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-representation before the CIT(A) is justified, considering the assessee's explanation of limited staff knowledge and computer proficiency.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 16/07/2025Pronounced: 16/07/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 15.01.2025, for the assessment year 2016-2017, thereby confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. It was submitted by the ld AR that there was failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the ld AO. It was the submission that the staffs of the assessee were limited and their knowledge of computer was also limited, which has resulted into non- representation before the ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the penalty as levied by the AO and as confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) may be deleted.

1.

3. In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. ld.AO and ld.CIT(A). It was the submission that for claiming the penalty to be arbitrary, no evidence has been produced by the assessee.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case shows that the assessee has not represented before the ld. CIT(A), however, the assessee has given an explanation that the employees of the assessee were no well-versed with the computer which has caused non-representation during the course of appellate proceedings. The reasons given by the assessee are found to be plausible reasons and in view of the provisions of Section 273B of the Act, as the assessee has provided the reasonable cause, we are of the view that the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) should be deleted and we do so. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 16/07/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (राजेश कुमार) (जाजज माथन) (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ददनाांक Dated 16/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 2. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, 5. Cuttack

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →