SHANTI DEVI KUSHWAHA,BHARATPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE -4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 32/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 February 2025AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not justified and deserved to be deleted. The reasoning was that the assessee's alleged non-cooperation during the scrutiny proceedings was justifiable due to circumstances beyond his control. The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the newly introduced faceless assessment system, where notices are served via email. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was imposed on grounds that were mitigated by the procedural realities of the faceless regime. The operative direction was the deletion of the impugned penalty. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shanti Devi Kushwaha, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Agra Bench, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.12.2023. This order upheld a penalty levied under section 272A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed for alleged non-cooperation with the Assessing Officer's notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal, and the case was proceeded ex-parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is justified in the hands of the assessee for alleged non-cooperation with the Assessing Officer's notices issued under sections 143(2)/142(1) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18? Assessee's contentions: None, as the assessee remained ex-parte. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that both lower authorities rightly levied the penalty under section 272A(1)(d) because the assessee failed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer's scrutiny notices. The Revenue acknowledged that in a faceless assessment system, communication gaps due to email-based service of notices cannot be entirely ruled out.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, “SMC” AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 06.02.2025Pronounced: 06.02.2025

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. ACIT, Shanti Devi Kushwaha, c/o- J.N. Goyal & Company, Circle-4(2)(1), C-162, Ranjeet Nagar, Farrukhabad, Bharatpur, Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh PAN :DPBPK5044H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 06.02.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059097778(1) dated 27.12.2023 involving proceedings under section 272A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

The Revenue vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly levied section 272A(1)(d) penalty of Rs.10,000/- in assessee’s hands on account of the fact that he had not cooperated to the Assessing Officer’s scrutiny notice(s) issued under section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act on various dates. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching facts emerging from the case file that it is an instance of faceless assessment wherein possibility of communication gaps in this newly introduced system which requires notices to be served by email etc., could not be altogether ruled out.

4.

That being the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee’s alleged non-cooperation during scrutiny herein was very well justifiable on account of the circumstances beyond his control and, therefore, the impugned penalty forming subject matter of our adjudication deserves to be deleted. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 272A

All 141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →