SWAPNIL SURESH MEHARE,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 4(5) PUNE, PUNE
Facts
The assessee, Swapnil Suresh Mehare, was penalized under section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act for AY 2018-19. The assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144, and the CIT(A) upheld a total penalty of Rs. 20,000 for two instances of non-compliance, despite the assessee claiming lack of knowledge as notices were sent to their former Chartered Accountant.
Held
The Tribunal ruled that while an ex-parte assessment under section 144 is the correct remedy for non-compliance with section 142(1) notices, repeated penalties under section 272A(1)(d) for the same default of non-compliance with a second notice are not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal restricted the penalty to Rs. 10,000 for the first default, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order confirming the full Rs. 20,000.
Key Issues
Whether imposing separate penalties under section 272A(1)(d) for multiple instances of non-compliance with section 142(1) notices is appropriate when the assessment is already completed ex-parte under section 144.
Sections Cited
250, 272A(1)(d), 142(1), 147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
आदेश / ORDER
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 19.09.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) passed u/s.250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Penalty Order dated 31.07.2023 passed u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act.
When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous dates of hearing fixed on 02.12.2025 and 11.12.2025 on one occasion assessee sought adjournment through Authorised Representative and on second occasion none appeared. Today also, there is no one to represent the assessee. I however considering the fact that issue raised in the instant appeal is against levy of penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of
ITA No.2395/PUN/2025 Swapnil Suresh Mehare
the Act, proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available material on record.
Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities as there was no compliance of the assessee to the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act and prayed for upholding the penalty of Rs.20,000/- levied u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act.
I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act for A.Y. 2018-19 was concluded on 24.03.2023. During the course of penalty proceedings, assessee was served with notices u/s.142(1) of the Act on two occasions, i.e. on 13.01.2023 and 02.02.2023 but assessee failed to respond. For such non-compliance, penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act was levied @ Rs.10,000/- for each non-compliance. In the proceedings before ld.CIT(A), I note that assessee has stated that the Chartered Accountant who was looking after the assessment work could not attend and the notices were sent on his e-mail id. However, ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty observing that the system provides for giving multiple e-mail ids of which one can be of the assessee. Now even in the appeal filed before this Tribunal also, assessee has merely mentioned the following reasons for non- compliance by way of Grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 which reads as under :
“2. The appellant contends that the appellant has reasonable cause for not making any compliance during
ITA No.2395/PUN/2025 Swapnil Suresh Mehare
the course of re assessment proceeding considering the fact that Notices were sent on Chartered Accountant s email address and appellant did not receive communication of on going proceedings in any manner not even from the Chartered Accountant. 3. The appellant contends that non communication from Professional that is Chartered Accountant which led to non compliance at every stage of proceedings also caused delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) and also caused genuine hardship to the appellant in form of issuance of Notice under section 226.”
I have gone through the above reasons and note that the assessment proceedings were carried out exparte u/s.144 of the Act. In case of failure of the assessee to comply with the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, the remedy with the Assessing Officer lies with framing of "best judgement assessment" under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act, as has been rightly done in the instant case but not to impose penalty u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act again and again for the same default. However, once the assessee has not replied to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act it can be treated as default but then for the very same 2nd notice for non compliance, fairly the assessee should not have been penalised by the ld. Assessing Officer. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and restrict the penalty levied u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act for the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is restricted to Rs.10,000/- as against Rs. 20,000/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed.
ITA No.2395/PUN/2025 Swapnil Suresh Mehare
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on this 30th day of January, 2026.
Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th January, 2026. Satish
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
// True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune
