M/S. MDLR AIRLINES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to a reasonable cause, specifically the large volume of work and a director's judicial custody. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer imposed penalties under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with statutory notices. The CIT(A) upheld these penalties. The assessee appealed these decisions.
What were the issues?
Whether the non-compliance with statutory notices constituted a reasonable cause for penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI C.M. GARG
PER R.S. SYAL, VP:
These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the confirmation of penalty amounting to Rs.20,000/- each under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) in relation to the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non- compliance of the statutory notices. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the instant appeals.
We have heard the parties and perused the relevant material on record. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the non-compliance of the statutory notices of hearing issued by the Assessing Officer was not intentional, but, was for reasonable cause as the assessee had to complete 303 group assessments within a short span of five months and further one of its directors was in judicial custody. We find that the non- compliance of the statutory notices by the assessee was due to the large volume of work to be completed by the assessee in a short span of time, which constitutes a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act. We, therefore, delete the penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Our view is fortified by an order of the Tribunal dated 06.11.2017 in the case of another group concern of the assessee, namely, M.M. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in to 4521/Del/2015, in which a similar penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.20,000/- each has been deleted. A copy of such order has been placed on record.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order Pronounced in the open Court on 11.12.2017.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1195/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1194/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1193/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Laxmi Narain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circle-20, New DelhiITA 4432/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Laxminarain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circel-20, New DelhiITA 4431/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026