HARSHADA RAJENDRA SHAH,UNITED STATES vs. ITO WARD 20(1)(5) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The solitary ground of appeal

2. In the penalty order u/s 272A(1)(d) passed on 27.09.2019, the assessing officer stated that assessee has not made compliance to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act requiring the assessee to prepare true and correct return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. Consequently, the AO levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271A(1)(d) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has sustained the penalty for not making compliance.

P a g e | 2 Harshada Rejendra Shah Vs. ITO,Ward 20(1)(5) 3. Heard the ld. D.R and perused the material on record. The assessee has explained in the form 35 filed before the ld. CIT(A) that she is a non-resident Indian and settled in U.S. for over last 40 years and having no taxable income in India. She also explained that through the period of assessment proceeding she was out of India in the USA and during the same period she was also diagnosed with cancer for which she had undergone treatment in the USA. She explained in the statement of facts filed before the ld. CIT(A) that because of aforesaid circumstances it was not possible for her to either file or appear before the assessing officer to explain her case. The same facts are in the appeal paper filed before us. After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances it appear that there is a bonafide reason for not making compliance to the notices issued under section 142(1) before the AO since the assessee was above 70 years old a non-resident settled in USA for the last 40 years. Further during the same period she was undergoing treatment of cancer at U.S.A. Therefore, we delete the penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied u/s 271A(1)(d). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.