PRITHVI RAJ MONGIA,HISAR vs. ITO WARD-1, HISAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2787/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 February 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) had overlooked the assessee's submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appeal for fresh adjudication by the Ld.CIT(A) to properly consider the assessee's contentions regarding reasonable cause for non-compliance, which could lead to the deletion of the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the Ld.CIT(A)'s order confirming penalties under sections 271B and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for not responding to notices issued under section 142(1). The core contention was that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and claims of sufficient compliance and reasonable cause.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred by confirming penalties under sections 271B and 271(1)(b) without considering the assessee's submissions on reasonable cause for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Kuldip Khera, CA
For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Hearing: 22.02.2024Pronounced: 27.02.2024

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”) dated 29.09.2023 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “That the order passed by the Honorable CIT(A) is bad in law and against the facts placed on file as the order has been passed by the Honorable CIT(A) without considering the submissions made by the assessee in response to notice before the date given in the notice on the Income Tax Portal.

2. That the Honorable CIT(A) erred in confirming action of the Learned AO, who has erred in law in imposing penalty twice u/s 271(1)(b) for default for not filing reply to notice u/s 142(1) dated 28.11.2021 and again to notice dated 21.12.2021. 3. That the Honorable CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the learned AO without issuing notice at the time of default.

4. That the Honorable CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the learned AO without recording the satisfaction before issuing penalty notice.

5. That the Honorable CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty wrongly imposed by the learned AO as there was sufficient compliance without any default and further there was no mens rea. 6. The assessee craves to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal

before the appeal is heard or finally disposed off.”

2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the present appeal is against the penalty imposed u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). He contended that the assessee had made elaborate submissions but the submissions of the assessee were not considered. He submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to consider the submissions of the assessee.

3.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below.

4.

I have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The assessee has placed on record the submissions dated 27.09.2023 which were made by the assessee. However, Ld.CIT(A) over- looked the submissions made by the assessee and did not advert to the contention of the assessee. Therefore, I hereby, set aside the grounds afresh after considering the submissions made by the assessee. If it is found that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance of the notices, the Ld.CIT(A) would delete the penalty imposed u/s 271B of the Act. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →