ROSY,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 3, PANCHKULA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 319/CHANDI/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 February 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)3 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 found justification in the assessee's submissions regarding non-service of notices and personal difficulties. Consequently, the penalties levied were deemed unjustified and ordered to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of penalties levied under Section 271B for non-compliance with notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The assessee claimed the notices were not served and that personal circumstances prevented her from checking the income tax portal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalties under Section 271B are justified when notices were not properly served and the assessee faced personal challenges preventing compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld.CIT(A)’] dated 22.03.2023 pertaining to 2013-14 to 2016- 17 assessment year.

2.

The assessee is aggrieved in all these appeals in respect of confirmation of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer ( in short ‘the AO’) u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in to 322/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17 2 short ‘the Act’).

3.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the impugned penalties have been levied by the AO for non compliance of notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The ld. counsel invited our attention to relevant part of the assessment order and submitted that the aforesaid notices were allegedly uploaded by the AO on the Income Tax Portal. That none of the notices were ever served upon the assessee. He has further submitted that even otherwise, the assessee is a divorcee lady living all alone with his minor son. That she was cheated by her husband who was already married to another lady prior to getting married with the assessee.

That her estranged husband had made false complaints with the Income Tax Authorities to harass the assessee. That the assessee, on the one hand was trying to cope up and look after her only son and on the other hand is defending the complaints filed by her husband. That the non compliance of the notices issued by the AO was not intentional but due to the fact that the aforesaid notices were not served upon the assessee and further the assessee being a divorcee lady could not look into the Income Tax Portal for the aforesaid reasons. to 322/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17 3

4.

We find justification in the aforesaid submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The assessee has duly explained her inability to comply with the notices issued by the AO for want of proper service of the same upon her. The impugned penalty levied by the AO is, therefore, not justified and the same is, accordingly, ordered to be deleted in all the captioned appeals.

5.

All the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced on 15 t h February,2024.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →