DHAVAL VALLABHBHAI GODHANI,RAJKOT vs. DCIT/ACIT CENT-1, RKT, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 890/RJT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 April 2025AY 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 quashed the penalty orders passed by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The primary reasoning was that the notices issued by the department were not proper, did not contain the date of the notice, and were not sent to the assessee's registered email address. The notices were only available on the department's website portal. The Tribunal noted that the non-compliance was due to the assessee's lack of knowledge about the penalty proceedings, as the notices were not properly communicated. This was considered a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal relied on a similar decision by the ITAT, Chandigarh, which had quashed a penalty order on the ground that notices were issued only on the portal. The penalty order was found to be contrary to facts and law. The appeals for both assessment years were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dhaval Vallabhbhai Godhani, filed appeals before the ITAT, Rajkot Bench, for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The appeals challenged orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), which in turn sustained penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalties were levied for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act during assessment proceedings. The AO issued show cause notices for penalty imposition, to which the assessee's reply was deemed unsatisfactory. The NFAC/CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals against these penalty orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A)/NFAC, is justified and warranted, considering the assessee's submissions regarding reasonable cause and proper service of statutory notices. Assessee's Contentions: - The Learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in sustaining the penalty, which is unjustified and unwarranted. - The written submissions regarding reasonable cause were not considered in the right perspective. - Statutory notices under Section 142(1) were not properly served upon the assessee during assessment proceedings. - The order of the Learned CIT(A)/NFAC is bad in law and contrary to the facts. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue contended that there was non-compliance with the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, leading to the imposition of the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 142(1),Section 153C,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH,

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 22/01/2025Pronounced: 03/04/2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM:

1.

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [(in short “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 24.10.2024, which in turn assessment order passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 23.03.2023.

Dhaval Vallabhbhai Godhani & 890/Rjt/2024 (AY 2018-20)

2.

Since, these two appeals filed by the same assessee are directed against the separate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), for different assessment years u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act, and different issues are involved, therefore, all these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. First we will adjudicate the for AY 2018-19. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee:

(1) Grounds of Appeal as under are without prejudice to one another. (2) The Learned CIT (A)/NFAC has erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed by the A.O. u/s.272A (1) (d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 vide his order u/s.250 dated 24.10.2024, which is unjustified and unwarranted. (3) The learned CIT (A)/NFAC erred in not considering the written submission regarding reasonable cause filed by the Appellant in a right perspective. (4) The learned CIT (A) has erred in not considering the facts on records that statutory notices u/s.142 (1) were not served properly upon the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. (5) The order of the learned CIT (A)/NFAC u/s.250 of the Act, is bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case. (6) Without prejudice to the above your petitioner craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary or withdraw all or any of the ground on or before the hearing of appeal.

3.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Notices u/s. 142(1) of the I. T. Act was issued on 14.07.2022 and 18.07.2022 for Assessment proceedings for the year 2018-19, that there was non- compliance to the notices by the assessee. The show cause notice was issued on 04.03.2023 stating that the why penalty should not be imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, for non-compliance of notices, against the show cause notices no reply was submitted, and another notice was issued on 11.03.2023. In response to notice a reply was submitted by the assessee which was not satisfactory explain about non-compliance of penalty notices.

Dhaval Vallabhbhai Godhani & 890/Rjt/2024 (AY 2018-20)

That the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed u/s. 272A(1)(d) by order dated 23.03.2023.

4.

That the appeal was filed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 24.10.2024.on non compliance by the appellant.

5.

We have heard both the Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted Paper book and the same is placed on record and Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue and perused the documents available on record. We noted that the notice issued by the department was not proper and do not contain the date of notice and also not sent on e-mail address, only it’s available on portal of the website of the department. A copy of notice and placed on record in paper book. We noted that assessment order was passed on 28.09.2022 u/s. 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Act, without proper communication to the appellant, and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. We further noted that the this assessment order is challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) on 11.03.2023, and same is set aside by order dated 03.01.2025. We noted that the assessee has replied to the notice issued for levying penalty, before the Assessing Officer stating that no notice or order has been communicated to the assessee for assessment either on registered e-mail or in physical form. We further note in the similar circumstances the ITAT, Chandigadh has quashed the penalty order on 04.09.2024, on the ground that the, notice issued only in portal. We also considered the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and the argument of the Ld. Sr. DR and also considered the submission advance the assessee.

6.

We note that the non compliance of the notice is not deliberated but it is because of no knowledge about the notice of penalty proceeding. Hence the penalty order is contrary to the facts and law of the case penalty order is Dhaval Vallabhbhai Godhani & 890/Rjt/2024 (AY 2018-20) framed in violation of natural justice and in arbitrary. Therefore, we find that the notice were issued on portal only not sent to the assessee. Therefore, we quashed the order dated 24.10.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) & order dated 23.03.2023 of the Ld. AO.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03 -04-2025

More judgments on Section 272A(1)(d)

All 1,125 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →