KEWAL KANWAR BHANDARI ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 651/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 July 2025AY 2016-17Bench: Dr. M. L. MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable or sufficient cause for non-compliance with the notices. The argument of unawareness due to technical reasons or online mode of communication was not accepted, citing the legal principle 'Ignorantia Juris non excusat'.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a penalty order under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices issued during assessment proceedings for AY 2016-17. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for failing to respond to notices issued on 16.01.2023 and 08.02.2023. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR.

Before: Dr. M. L. MEENA & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

For Appellant: Smt. Raksha Birla, C.A
Hearing: 30/06/2025Pronounced: 07/07/2025

Result

14.

In view of the above discussion, and for the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and also by Learned CIT(A), when the assessee-applicant failed to discharge onus to establish that there was any sufficient cause for non compliance with the said two notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

1.

Kewal Kanwar Bhandari Judicial Member having joined and presided over through virtual mode from Jaipur Benches, order needs pronouncement under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office.

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 →