ANIL KUMAR AVASTHI,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO 3(2), HARDOI, HARDOI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that if an assessee appears in subsequent proceedings and the assessment is completed under Section 143(3), any earlier default should be ignored, and no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) should be levied.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was delayed by 13 days due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-appearance in initial proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is leviable when the assessee appears in subsequent proceedings and assessment is completed under Section 143(3), despite initial non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT292 citing115 TTJ 419 · 2008 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A), dated 12/03/2021 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.
At the outset, Learned A. R. invited our attention to the fact that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 13 days and our attention was also invited to copy of application dated 24/05/2021 for condonation of delay wherein the reason for delay in filing the appeal has been mentioned. Learned A. R. explained that the appeal could not be filed within the time for the reason that the Government had declared a lockdown owing to spread of pandemic COVID-19 and the office of the Chartered Accountant was closed. It was submitted that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed Assessment Year:2011-12 2 time therefore, the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be heard. Learned D. R. had no objection to the condonation of delay. Finding the reason plausible for delay in filing the appeal, the delay was condoned and both parties were heard.
During the course of hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that during the course of assessment proceedings initially the assessee could not appear, but later on, assessee has appeared and filed reply to show cause notice, but Assessing Officer levied the penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that once the assessee has appeared before the Assessing Officer no penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act should have been levied. In support of these contentions, he placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax reported in 115 TTJ 419 (Delhi) in which it has been held that the order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144 of the Act and the defaults committed earlier by the assessee should be ignored by the Assessing Officer, as there was good compliance in assessment proceedings. Therefore, in such circumstances there is no reason to come to the conclusion that the default was willful.
Ld. DR of the Revenue placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions, carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below. We find that the assessee has appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed a reply to show cause notice and later on the Assessing Officer has completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. We have also carefully examined the order of the Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak (Supra), and we are of the view that whenever the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer in subsequent proceeding and assessment has Assessment Year:2011-12 3 been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the default committed in earlier proceedings should be ignored and no penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act should be levied. Since the assessee has appeared in subsequent proceeding and assessment order has been passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, no penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is leviable. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the penalty.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 28/07/2022)
Sd/. Sd/. ( A. D. JAIN ) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) Vice President Accountant Member
More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1195/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1194/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1193/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Laxmi Narain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circle-20, New DelhiITA 4432/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Laxminarain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circel-20, New DelhiITA 4431/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026