RAM KUMAR DHIMAN,DELHI vs. AO WARD-26(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2708/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 August 2023AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders did not initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the information provided for completion under Section 143(3), the penalty for non-compliance with notices was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalties levied for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessments for both years were completed under Section 143(3) without any initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment orders.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is justified when assessment is completed under Section 143(3) without explicit initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI M BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Mangla, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Hearing: 22.08.2023

आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

1.

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27 & 30, New Delhi dated 06.02.2019 and 30.01.2019 for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively in sustaining the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act.

2.

In this case penalty was levied for non-compliance of the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act which was sustained by the 1

I.T.A. Nos. 2707 & 2708/Del/2019 Ld.CIT(Appeals). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act both for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 by orders dated 30.12.2016 and 25.12.2017. The Ld. Assessing Officer is satisfied with the information provided and there was no direction in the assessment order for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and, therefore, no justification for levying penalty for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act.

Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of DLF Commercial Enterprises vs. ACIT 131 taxmann.com 305.

3.

Ld. DR supported the orders of the CIT(A).

4.

Heard rival submissions. On perusal of the assessment orders for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, we noticed that assessments were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. We also noticed from the assessment orders that there is no initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act by the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders passed, therefore, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer is satisfied with the information furnished by the assessee based on which the assessment was completed. There was no initiation of penalty for levy u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of any notice in the assessment order. The Tribunal considered the 2

I.T.A. Nos. 2707 & 2708/Del/2019 situation where the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) and the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) in the case of DLF Commercial Enterprise vs. ACIT (supra) and it has been held that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was not justified and had to be cancelled for the reason that Assessing Officer was on whole satisfied with overall compliances made by the assessee during assessment proceedings before Assessing Officer and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144 of the Act. Following the above decision, we delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) for both the assessment years under consideration.

5.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.08.2023

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →