Loading judgment…
Facts
A penalty of Rs. 30,000 was levied on the assessee under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for non-compliance with three notices issued under Section 142(1) for AY 2017-18, with each non-compliance attracting Rs. 10,000 penalty. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal, confirming the penalty order.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer provided only a one-day gap between the date of issuing the notices under Section 142(1) and the fixed date for compliance, which was deemed insufficient and unreasonable. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated for non-compliance deserved to be deleted.
Key Issues
Whether penalty for non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1) is justified when insufficient time (one day) was provided for compliance.
Sections Cited
272A(1)(d), 142(1), 271(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SH. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
This appeal is filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18 against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), Delhi dated 08/01/2024.
“1. Because the action is under challenge on facts & law for levying penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) amounting Rs. 30,000 for non-compliance of 3 statutory notices whereby per assessee the said notices has been replied on ITBA Pirtal.
For any consequential relief and/or legal claim arising out of this appeal and for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal before the disposal of the same in the interest of substantial justice to the assessee."
Brief facts of the case are that, a penalty order dated 14/01/2022 u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) has been passed against the assessee by levying Rs.
30,000/- i.e. Rs. 10,000/- for each non compliance of the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 14/01/2022, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 08/01/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the order of the penalty. As against the order dated 08/01/2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us on the grounds mentioned above.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has given one day gap to reply the notices issued u/s 142(1)
of the Act which resulted in non-compliance and followed by the order of penalty. Thus, submitted that none filing of reply was not intentional, therefore, sought for deletion of the order of the penalty.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal filed by the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is found from the record that during the course of assessment proceedings, the subject notices were issued by giving one day gap between the date of notice and date fixed for the compliance. The details are as under:-
Notice Date of Notice Date fixed for Remarks compliance Noticed u/s 142(1) 14.10.2019 16.10.2019 No compliance Noticed u/s 142(1) 25.11.2019 27.11.2019 No compliance Noticed u/s 142(1) 17.12.2019 19.12.2019 No compliance
Considering the fact that the A.O. has giving only one day time between date of notice and date for fixing the compliance of the notice, one day time for replying the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act is neither sufficient nor reasonable in the part of the A.O.
Therefore, the penalty proceedings initiated for non-compliance of the Notices deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(d) of the Act total of Rs. 30,000/- is hereby deleted.
In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th AUGUST, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 12/08/2024 R.N, Sr. PS*