SD PRECISION TECH P. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1399/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 January 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)1 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 found merit in the assessee's submission that no notices or the assessment order were served. Therefore, there was no justification for levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with Section 142(1) notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee claims not to have received any notices or the assessment order, which was completed ex-parte under Section 144. The assessee had to request a copy of the assessment order and also filed an RTI application for the assessment file.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is justified when the assessee claims non-receipt of notices and assessment order?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. &, Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.10.2023Pronounced: 08.01.2024

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.

CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, dated 10.08.2021 for Assessment Year 2015-16, in sustain the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

ITA No.- 1399/Del/2021 SD Precision Tech P. Ltd. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has not received any notice issued by the Assessing Officer or even the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring the Page 8 of the Paper Book submits that, as a matter of fact, the assessee requested the Assessing Officer for supply of copy of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in the absence of service of any notice there is no justification in levying penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

3.

Heard rival submissions. On perusal of the assessment order, we noticed that assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act as the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and ultimately the assessment was completed ex-parte as a best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. We also noticed from the materials placed on record that the assessee requested copy of the assessment order passed as the assessment order was also not served upon the assessee and it was found only in the online portal of the Income Tax Department.

We also found that the assessee filed an application under RTI, requesting

ITA No.- 1399/Del/2021 SD Precision Tech P. Ltd. for complete assessment file along with the sanction of PCIT for reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act.

3.1 All these facts goes to show that there is merits in submission of the assessee that it had neither received any notice nor the assessment order and therefore we are of the view that there is no justification in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) dated 8.12.2017. Thus, we delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 08.01.2024

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 →