SH. DILIP SINGH,PALI vs. ITO, WARD-1, PALI, PALI
Facts
The assessee is in appeal against the order confirming a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1). The assessee claims they did not receive the notices in time and faced issues obtaining necessary documents from the bank.
Held
The Tribunal observed that while the assessee did not comply with the notices, the repeated notices for the same information should not multiply the default. They relied on previous judgments to support the view that penalty should be restricted to one default.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty for non-compliance with multiple notices for the same information should be levied for each notice or considered as a single default, and whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance.
Sections Cited
272A(1)(d), 142(1), 273B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HONBLE & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HONBLE
This Appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Central, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "NFAC/CIT(A)"] dated 11.07.2024 in respect of assessment year 2017-18 challenging therein confirmation of levy of penalty of Rs. 40,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that Id. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee and endorsed the finding of the Assessing Officer (In short "the AO") by observing vide para 6.7 that the assessee has completely failed to make any compliance or summit reply/response/ explanation to any show cause notices issued under section 272A(1)(d), in spite of providing sufficient and repeated opportunities and reasonable time. Since, the penalty is time barring, and no compliance has been made the penalty proceedings are to be completed on the basis of the details, information and documents available on record. Therefore, it is also presumed that the assessee has nothing to say/no explanation to offer in this regard. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO under section 272A(1)(d) of the I.T Act for non-compliance of the notices dated 25/11/2021, 11/01/2022, 20/01/2022 and 31/01/2022 is found to be correct and justified.
The council for the assessee submitted that assessee has no knowledge of the income tax notices issued u/s 142(1) of the act as he has not been served the notices in time and that he was further not provided with the copy of bank account required in compliance to the queries of the assessing officer (in short "the AO") as the branch manager has not cooperated in providing the required documents. In support, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating therein that there was a reasonable cause for non compliance to the 4 notices issued by the AO under section 142 (1) of the IT act 1961 dated 25/11/2021, 11/01/2022, 20/01/2022 and 31/01/2022. The learned counsel contended that section 273 B provide that no penalty under section 272A(1)(d) shall be levied if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the failure to file the response in compliance to notices issued under section 142(1) of the act.
The council raised a alternatively plea that the AO levied penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of ₹40,000 for failure on 4 occasions (being ₹10,000/- for each occasion for failure) may be reduced to ₹10,000/-. The Counsel contended that four repeated notices issued by the AO seeking same information could not multiply the default and hence penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the act may be restricted to one default. In support, he placed reliance on the decisions delivered by the several tribunals and higher judicial forms as mentioned in his reply reproduced in the impugned order.
In the present case, the assaessee has committed 4 defaults of non- compliance of same information sought for by the AO under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. In our view, the repeated 4 notices issued u/s 142(1) of the No. 1167/JPa2019 end ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Smt. Rekha Rani Vs. DCIT (2015) 154 ITD 617. 6. Accordingly, the penalty imposed in the section 272A(1)(d) has been restricted to ₹10,000 only.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on.. 2.7.../..4.5..../2025 in the open court. (RAJPAL YADAV) VICE PRESIDENT (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27./.05./2025 Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By Oder
