SALIM,S/O ROSHAN DIN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2976/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 April 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)3 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, after verifying the custody certificate, found that the assessee was indeed incarcerated during the period of non-compliance, making it impossible for the notices to be effectively served or responded to. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient cause for non-compliance and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalties levied.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Salim SO Roshan Din, faced penalties under sections 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act for non-compliance with notices issued under sections 142(1) and 143(2) for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2021-22. The assessee's counsel argued that the non-compliance was due to the assessee being in judicial custody as an under-trial in Central Jail, Hisar, from March 28, 2021, to August 6, 2022.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty for non-compliance with income tax notices can be imposed when the assessee was in judicial custody during the relevant period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 272A(1)(d),Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

Hearing: 25.01.2024

सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 25.01.2024 23.04.2024 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R

All these appeals are filed by the assessee against common order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-3, Gurgaon dated 29.08.2023 in sustaining the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of notice/notices issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the Act.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of notices issued u/s 142/143(2) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that assessee

I.T.A.Nos.2971 to 2977/Del/2023 was under custody as under trial in Central Jail, Hisar during the period from 28.03.2021 to 06.08.2022 and, therefore, the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer.

Ld. Counsel submits that since the assessee is in Central Jail as under trial the notices issued by the Assessing Officer could not have been served and, therefore, there is no justification for levying penalty for non-compliance.

3.

Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

4.

Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below.

5.

On perusal of the custody certificate issued by the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar it is very much clear that the assessee was under custody as under trial for the period from 28.03.2021 to 06.08.2021. In the circumstances, the notices issued by the AO u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the Act could not have been served on the assessee. From the perusal of the penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act it is noticed that penalty was levied for non-compliance of the statutory notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 25.02.2022 for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2021-22. The notice dated 25.02.2022 issued u/s 142(1) could not have been served on I.T.A.Nos.2971 to 2977/Del/2023 the assessee as he was under the custody from 28.03.2021 to 06.08.2022, therefore, the question of levy of penalty for non- compliance does not arise. Even otherwise the assessee is prevented from sufficient cause in not responding to the notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 25.02.2022. Thus, the AO is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2021-22. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

6.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23/04/2024

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 →