JAYASAKTHI KNIT WEAR,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TIRUPPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's affidavit and plea for leniency, found that a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- would suffice for not responding to the notices. They directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 30,000/-, confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Jayasakthi Knit Wear, appealed against an order confirming a penalty levied by the AO for non-compliance with notices under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed to have suffered depression due to business losses, which prevented them from responding to the notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty imposed for non-compliance with notices is justified, considering the assessee's explanation of depression due to business losses.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), NFAC, Delhi, dated 19.04.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short ‘AY’) 2017-18 confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act").
The main grievance of the assessee is against the order of the AO confirming penalty for violation of sec.272A(1)(d) of the Act levying penalty of Rs.40,000/- for not responding to notices (four times) other than levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- for non-compliance. The only plea of the assessee is that the assessee got into depression since the assessee suffered huge loss in the business and therefore, couldn’t respond to the notices of the AO and has filed an affidavit pleading for leniency.
Having gone through the contents of the sworn affidavit, we are of the view that penalty of Rs.10,000/- would suffice for not responding to the notices and therefore, we direct the AO to delete penalty of Rs.30,000/- and confirm penalty of Rs.10,000/-.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 13th day of November, 2024, in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 272A(1)(d)
- Vipulbhai Keharbhai Kukadiya, Bhavnagar vs The Income Tax Office, Ward 1(9) Bhavnagar…ITA 2465/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Vipulbhai Keharbhai Kukadiya, Bhavnagar vs The Income Tax Office, Ward 1(9) Bhavnagar…ITA 2464/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Alkeshbhai Chimanbhai Barot, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 1(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 178/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Alkeshbhai Chimanbhai Barot, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 177/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026