GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFCER, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 102/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 April 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the period of non-compliance coincided with the peak of the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, and there was no indication that the non-compliance prejudiced the assessment. Therefore, these circumstances constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, failed to comply with Section 142(1) notices issued by the Income Tax Officer. Penalties were imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for this non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 142(1) notices, and if the non-compliance prejudiced the assessment.

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, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 23.04.2024Pronounced: 24.04.2024

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1058040406(1), dated 17.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s.271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

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

1.

2 ITA.No.102/PUN./2024 2. Mr. Murkunde vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly imposed the impugned sec.271(1)(b) penalty(ies) of Rs.10,000/- each on account of assessee’s default in not having complied with the assessing authority(ies) sec.142(1) notice dated 29.09.2020 and 09.02.2021, 19.02. 2021, 15.07. 2021 and 11.082021, respectively. He sought to buttress the point that impugned penalty provision has been inserted in the Act as a deterrent for non-complied assessee(s) and therefore, the same is liable to be upheld in the facts of the instant case once the taxpayer herein has not shown any reasonable cause explaining it’s non-cooperation.

3.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement stand. We make it clear first of all that the assessee is a Government corporation viz., Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation. We note possibility of some communication gaps between the field authorities vis-à-vis decision makers could not be altogether ruled out, more particularly, in light of the fact that the assessee’s default period herein falling the peak of second wave of Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak during the period from September, 2020 to August, 2021, as the case may be. Coupled with this there is no indication in either of the learned lower authorities respective orders that the assessee’s alleged failure in not complying with sec.142(1) notice in any case prejudiced the corresponding

3 ITA.No.102/PUN./2024 assessment framed in it’s case. Faced with this situation, we treat the foregoing circumstances as a reasonable cause for the assessee’s alleged non-compliance to sec.142(1) notice during the course of assessment and delete the impugned penalty in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.04.2024.

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 →