Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश/O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 27.06.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] by which the penalty-order dated 03.12.2018 passed by ITO, Ward-4(4), Indore [“Ld. AO”] imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the act”] has been upheld, the assessee has filed this appeal on following ground:
“That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining penalty of Rs. 10,000/- as levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance of the notices issued during the course of Page 1 of 5
Shri Shivnarayan Assessment year 2012-13 assessment-proceedings without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him even when the said notices were never actually served upon the appellant.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and the case records perused.
The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 82 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR submits that the assessee has filed a request for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. On perusal of affidavit, we observe that following reason has been given by assessee for delay in filing appeal:
“2) I being a farmer was not aware about the further compliances which were required to be made in respect of the said order. Due to the aforesaid reason, the said order was inadvertently remained with me and the appeal against the said order was not filed within time.” Ld. AR very humbly submits that there is no deliberate lethargy, negligence or mala fide intention of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further submits that the sole reason of delay is that the assessee being farmer is not aware of further compliance to be made after the order of first-appeal. Ld. DR left the matter to the wisdom of Bench. We are convinced with the reason assigned by assessee. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387, we take a judicious view; condone delay and proceed with appeal.
Ld. AR refers to the penalty-order dated 03.12.2018 and submits that the AO has imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the act for the reason that there was non-compliance of notice dated 10.10.2018 issued by him u/s 142(1). Ld. AR submits that the said notice dated 10.10.2018 was in fact not served upon assessee. Ld AR submits that the AO might have served the same through e-mail but the assessee being farmer does not check email and that is why the assessee was not at all aware of any such Shri Shivnarayan Assessment year 2012-13 notice having been issued by AO. Carrying us to penalty-order, Ld. AR submits that even the show-cause notice dated 30.10.2018 making the proposal for imposition of penalty could not be attended by assessee for the very same reason. Ld. AR submits that the CIT(A) has not considered this factual and genuine submission of assessee and dismissed first-appeal which is neither legal nor judicious. Ld. AR submits that the section 273B prescribes thus:
“273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, ……., no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the saie failure.” Ld. AR submits that the Ld. CIT(A), being the first-appellate authority, should have considered the case of assessee holistically and judiciously in term of over-riding provision of section 273B and penalty should have been deleted. Ld. AR prays us to quash the penalty.
Ld. DR though supported the order passed by Ld. AO but left the matter to the wisdom of Bench.
We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower authorities. After a careful and judicious consideration and taking into account the provision of section 273B, we are of the considered view that the assessee is a farmer and the impugned notice u/s 142(1) was issued way back on 10.10.2018 when there was no or very less awareness of the people, particularly farmers, about newer technologies like e-mailing. This genuine difficulty has led to the non-compliance of notice. Being so, we are of the view that the assessee should not be made liable to penalty especially due to a specific provision of section 273B which prescribes that no penalty shall be imposed if there is a reasonable cause of failure. Thus, we quash the penalty and allow this appeal of assessee.
Shri Shivnarayan Assessment year 2012-13 7. Resultantly, this appeal of assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules, 1963 on….../……/2023. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/04/2023.