RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,SEHORE, SEHORE
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated assessment proceedings under section 147 based on cash deposits of Rs. 3,45,00,000. During the proceedings, the AO issued multiple notices under section 142(1) for non-compliance, leading to an ex-parte assessment and imposition of penalties under sections 271AAC and 272A(1)(d). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to delay.
Held
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal held that multiple notices issued for the same issue within a short period constitute a single continuing default, not separate offenses. Therefore, penalty cannot be levied for each notice individually.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty imposed for non-compliance with multiple notices issued for the same issue can be levied separately for each notice? Whether the assessee had reasonable cause for non-compliance?
Sections Cited
272A(1)(d), 147, 148, 142(1), 144, 69, 271AAC, 273B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, AM:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 17.04.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 25.09.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by Assessing Officer without giving proper opportunity of being heard resulting into violation of principal of natural justice.
Page 1 of 5
Rajesh Rathore ITA No.534/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2018-19
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of imposing penalty of Rs. 30,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of imposition of penalty as appellant had reasonable cause for non-compliance of the impugned notices. 4. The appellant craves leave to add any new ground of appeal OR alter, amend OR DLEETE any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:
(i) The AO initiated proceeding of assessment u/s 147 through a notice
dated 31.03.2022 u/s 148 to examine the cash deposits of Rs.
3,45,00,000/- having been made by assessee in a bank a/c. During
such proceedings, the AO issued three notices dated 22.08.2022,
21.09.2022 and 11.10.2022 u/s 142(1) followed by letter/show-
cause notice to assessee but finding non-compliances from assessee,
the AO completed assessment ex-parte assessment u/s 144 vide
assessment-order dated 06.03.2023 treating the deposits in bank a/c
as unexplained investment u/s 69 and thereby determining total
income at Rs. 3,45,00,000/-.
(ii) Simultaneously, the AO also initiated separate proceedings for
imposition of penalties u/s 271AAC & 272A(1)(d). Ultimately, the AO
passed separate penalty-orders imposing penalties u/s 271AAC &
272A(1)(d).
(iii) Aggrieved, the assessee filed three separate appeals, one against
assessment-order and other two against respective penalty-orders
Page 2 of 5
Rajesh Rathore ITA No.534/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2018-19
u/s 271AAC & 272A(1)(d) to CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed all
three appeals in limine without adjudicating merits, on the ground of
belated filing of appeals by assessee.
(iv) Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeals before this
bench of ITAT by way of three separate appeals, being ITA No. 533 to
535/Ind/2025.
The present appeal being ITA No. 534/Ind/2025 is directed against (v)
the penalty imposed by AO u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliances to the
notices u/s 142(1). The AO has passed penalty-order dated
25.09.2023 imposing a total penalty of Rs. 30,000/- @ Rs. 10,000/-
for non-compliance of each of the three notices issued u/s 142(1).
At first, we note that the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first-appeal
on the ground of delayed filing by 395 days. Similar delay [but with
changes in days of delay] also happened in other two appeals, being ITA No.
533/Ind/2025 & 535/Ind/2025. This bench, vide two separate orders of
even date authored by learned J.M., has taken a view to condone the delay
in filing those appeals before CIT(A) [Para 4.3 of order of even date].
Respectfully following the same view as taken in other appeals, we condone
the delay in filing of present appeal before CIT(A) and proceed to adjudicate
present appeal on merits.
Page 3 of 5
Rajesh Rathore ITA No.534/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2018-19
On merits, the assessee in present appeal is aggrieved by a penalty of
Rs. 30,000/- imposed by AO for non-compliances of three (3) notices issued
by AO u/s 142(1). The Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the AO issued
three (3) successive notices dated 22.08.2022, 21.09.2022 and 11.10.2022
u/s 142(1) within a short gap of time for examining a single issue of cash
deposit of 3,45,00,000/- having been made by assessee in bank a/c.
Accordingly, it was contended that where successive notices have been
issued within a short span of time to examine a single issue, the alleged
non-compliances partakes the character of a single continuing default and
therefore the penalty cannot be levied separately for each notice. We find
merit in the contention of the Ld. AR that where the notices have been
issued by the AO, one after another, for examination of same issue, it will
not multiply the default and it would constitute a single default. The object
of section 272A(1)(d) is to ensure compliance and not to multiply penal
consequences for a singular lapse arising out of the same cause. This
proposition is supported by plethora of decisions including the recent
decision dated 14.10.2025 given by ITAT, Pune Bench in Devraj
Vishwasrao Jadhav Vs. ITO, Satara, ITA No. 1002/Pun/2025. Same
view has also been accepted by this very bench in Ganpat Singh Vs. ITO-
3(1), Bhopal, ITA No.158/Ind/2025. Accordingly, in the light of same
and also considering the provisions of section 273B of the Act, we are of the
view that the penalty for first non-compliance deserves to be confirmed and
for the subsequent non-compliances penalty deserves to be deleted. We,
Page 4 of 5
Rajesh Rathore ITA No.534/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2018-19
therefore, restrict the quantum of penalty for one default as against three
defaults treated by Ld. AO. Accordingly, out of the total penalty of Rs.
30,000/- imposed by AO, we uphold the penalty to the extent of Rs.
10,000/- and delete the balance penalty of Rs. 20,000/-.
Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 19/02/2026
Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/ Dated : 19/02/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 5 of 5
