DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 201/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 March 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)2 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 due to the newly introduced faceless hearing system, communication gaps between the assessee and their representatives could not be ruled out. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to a penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with section 142(1) notices. The lower authorities imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- for failure to respond to these notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with section 142(1) notices is justified, considering the challenges of a new faceless assessment system.

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, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 21.03.2025Pronounced: 21.03.2025

Date of hearing 21.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 21.03.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, 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/250/2024-25/1070305275(1), dated 13.11.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have levied section 271(1)(b) penalty of Rs.30,000/- in the assessee’s hands for having not complied with the corresponding section 142(1) notices issued on 21st and 14th October, 2023 and 1st January, 2024; respectively.

3.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenue’s vehement rival submissions against and in support of the impugned penalty. We are of the considered view that given the fact that it was an instance of newly introduced system of faceless hearing, possibility of some communication gaps between the assessee and his counsel/auditor could not be altogether ruled out for various reasons. We thus conclude that the impugned section 271(1)(b) penalty of Rs.30,000/- is not sustainable in law which stands deleted. Ordered accordingly.

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 →