NAVEEN KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 34 (1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3949/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 December 2024AY 2014-15Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)2 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 acknowledged that the assessee had requested an adjournment and later submitted all the necessary documents. It was determined that the alleged non-compliance leading to the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was factually incorrect. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the assessee was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for Assessment Year 2014-15 due to non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had sought an adjournment for the hearing and subsequently furnished all required details and documents. The Ld. AR argued that there was no actual non-compliance to warrant the penalty.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the validity of a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a Section 142(1) notice, specifically when the assessee had sought an adjournment and subsequently filed all required documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, DELHI

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA

Hearing: 18.12.2024

ORDER

PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

1.

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.06.2024 arising out of the order passed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) dated 01.08.2023 for A.Y. 2014-15 for non compliance by the assessee against the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act.

2.

At the time of hearing of the matter it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee that on the date fixed for hearing on 31.01.2023 the assessee filed an application for adjournment before the Ld. AO and later on all the requisite details and documents were duly filed. In that view of the matter there is no non-compliance made by the assessee and penalty, therefore, in terms of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act does not and cannot arise, as was the crux of arguments advanced by the Ld. AR which has not been able to be controverted by the Ld. DR 3. Having heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter since the adjournment has already been sought for by the assessee on the date of hearing, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) due to non compliance of the assessee is found to be factually incorrect and, therefore deleted.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.12.2024.

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 →