KAMALCHAND SHIYAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(1), CHENNAI
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 when an assessment order is passed under Section 143(3) and subsequent compliance is made, earlier defaults should be ignored, and the penalty for wilful default cannot be sustained. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 142(1) during assessment proceedings for AY 2014-15. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty despite the assessee eventually furnishing details and the assessment being completed under Section 143(3).
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is leviable for non-compliance with a notice when the assessment is ultimately completed under Section 143(3) after subsequent compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in dated 28.03.2018 confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) for assessment year 2015-16.
The Ld. AR submitted that Shri. Kamal Chand Shiyal, the assessee, derived income from house property, long term capital gains on sale on shares and income from other sources. During the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2014-15, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 142(1) calling for certain details. Since, the details were not filed, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(b) and levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Though the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) dated 14.02.2017, based upon details and the particulars furnished by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty.
The AR submitted that the Delhi tribunal in dated 20.09.2016 for assessment year 2010-11 held, inter alia, that when the assessment order is passed u/s. 143(3) and not u/s. 144. The subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings is considered as good compliance and defaults earlier committed by AO is ignored. In such circumstances, there can be no reason to come to conclusion that the default is wilful. Since, the facts and circumstances of this case is totally similar, the AR pleaded that in accordance with the same ratio, the penalty may be deleted. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We heard the rival submissions. On the facts and circumstances, the ratio of the decision of Delhi tribunal in dated 20.09.2016, supra, is clearly applicable to this case and hence the AO is directed to delete the penalty.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced on Monday, the 05th day of November, 2018 at Chennai.
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 →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026