SHRI SHANKAR ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,ALIGARH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

PDF · subscribers
ITA 262/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 February 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that a single default of non-compliance with the notice could not be considered a willful non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable in this case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arose against a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for failure to comply with a section 142(1) notice. The assessee did not appear before the tribunal when the case was called.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for a single instance of non-compliance is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWALShri Shankar Ispat Pvt.

Hearing: 10.02.2025Pronounced: 10.02.2025

O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065081908(1) dated 22.05.2024, involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’]. 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

Learned DR vehemently argues that both the lower authorities herein have rightly imposed section 271(1)(b) penalty of Rs.10,000/- since the assessee failed to comply with his section 142(1) notice issued during scrutiny proceedings. And that he has further filed any cogent explanation all along explaining his non-cooperation during the course of reassessment. However, we opine that a single default could not be taken as an instant willful non-compliance in the given facts and therefore, this is not a fit case for levying of impugned penalty.

4.

Accordingly, we delete Section 271(1)(b) penalty in above terms.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.02.2025

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 →