Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a penalty of Rs.20,000/- levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee contended that the notice from the AO was not served due to a change in address, while the lower authorities found no record of this change being communicated or updated. The assessee's counsel argued that the return was filed from the new address but notices were sent to the old address.
Held
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable in the interest of justice, relying on the principle from Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa that penalty should not be levied if the assessee's conduct is not contumacious. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the penalty.
Key Issues
Whether a penalty under section 271(1)(b) is sustainable when notices were allegedly not served due to a change in the assessee's address and the conduct was not found to be contumacious.
Sections Cited
271(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI
(Assessment Year: 2012-13) Surya Pratap Singh, vs. ITO, Ward 2 (5), KA-138, Galaxy Ganga, Meerut. Ganga Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AIAPS1956P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.K. Jain, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date of Order : 06.03.2024
ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated0 01.09.2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The issue raised is against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) amounting to Rs.20,000/- imposed on the assessee. 3. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case notice issued by the AO was not served upon the assessee as there was change in the assessee’s address. This aspect was not sustained by the authorities below. Ld. CIT (A) in his order mentioned that there is nothing on record that change of address of assessee was communicated to the AO or updated on the assessee’s e-filing profile.
Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee’s return was also filed on the changed address but the notices were sent to the old address.
Upon careful consideration, I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice, penalty in this regard is not sustainable. In this regard, I rely upon the decision of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 for the proposition if the assessee’s conduct is not found to be contumacious the authority may not levy penalty. In the background of the aforesaid, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the penalty levied.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 6th day of March, 2024.