TULIPSTAR TOWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2336/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had properly updated its address with the Department and that the Department failed to consider the new address for issuing notices. Therefore, the assessee could not be deemed negligent for non-compliance. The Tribunal concluded that the imposition of penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was not justifiable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Tulipstar Towels Pvt. Ltd., was penalized Rs. 30,000 under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1) or Section 143(2) for AY 2017-18. The assessee had changed its address in 2016 and duly updated it in the PAN database and intimated the Income Tax Department, but communications continued to be sent to the old address, leading to unawareness of proceedings. The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is justifiable when the assessee had duly updated its address with the Income Tax Department but notices were not served at the new address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER

1.

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 27-10- 2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:- “1. That the learned CIT(Appeal)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by confirming the penalty imposed of Rs.30,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, and therefore, the learned AO should be directed to delete the penalty of Rs.30,000/- levied under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act.

2. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds on or before the time of hearing.”

3.

The assessee is a private limited company and has shifted its address w.e.f. 18-11-2016. The assessee has furnished the evidences related to change of address which are as follows:- “a) Receipt in G.A.R.7 dated 18/11/2016 of ministry and corporate affairs of Rs 500 In regard to fee for form No INC-22 for change in Address. b) Form no INC-24 Under section 13(2) of Companies act 2013 and Rule 29(2) of the companies Rules 2014 in regard to the application for approval of central government for change of name and Address both.”

Since none of the communication could reach to the address prior to 15-12-2021, the assessee was not aware about the assessment proceedings as well as the penalty proceedings u/s. 272(A)(1)(d) of the Act.

4.

The penalty order dated 29-11-2021 was passed for non- compliance of notices issued u/s. 142(1) or sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act and thus imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has duly changed his address in PAN data base as well as has e-filed profile and written intimation. Thus, the Income Tax Department was very well aware about the address. Thus, the ld. A.R. submitted that the penalty should have not been imposed on the assessee.

6.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order, penalty order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials on record. It is pertinent to note that in this case, Tulipstar Towels Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2017-18 the assessee has updated the address with the Department through its PAN data base and intimation with the Income Tax Department. The notices are issued including the PAN data base and its details. The Department has not taken into account the new address and therefore the assessee cannot be stated to be negligent of not informing the Assessing Officer about the change of address. Thus, imposition of penalty in the present assessee’s case u/s. 272(A)(1)(d) is not justifiable.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8.

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 →