RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,SEHORE, SEHORE

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

“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.

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 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 to 535/Ind/2025.

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).

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.

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 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/-.

Order pronounced in open court on 19/02/2026