MANJU JAIN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO,WARD-1(1)(4), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1875/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 2023AY 2012-134 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 that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the notice. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144/147. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was levied under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a notice issued under section 142(1). The assessee argued that the notice was sent to an old address and was not received.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(b) is justified when the assessee did not receive the notice due to an incorrect address and had sufficient cause for non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 08.08.2023Pronounced: 11.08.2023

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),

Delhi, dated 25.04.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings against the assessee u/s. 274 read with section 271(l)(b) and imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- upon the assessee u/s. 271(l)(b) is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, penalty imposed should be deleted.

2.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) was wrong in passing the order ex-parte without providing an opportunity to the assessee hence the order as framed is not correct.

3. That on the facts and circumstance of the case, no statutory notices issued U/s 147/148/142(1) and order passed U/s 147/144 were served/received on the address of the assessee.

4. That the assessee shifted to Delhi in the year 2007 at G - 23, Block - G, Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110092, but the notices were issued and the same was remained un-served on the old address of the assessee i.e. G - 11, Race Course, Dehradun - 248001, Uttarakhand. Further, it may be noted that the address of the assessee updated in the bank account was of Delhi, but the Ld. AO issued the notice for the old address and ignored the change of Address & further while passing the Ex-parte appeal order the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi has also ignored this fact completely.

5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal

at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.

2. The only effective ground raised in this appeal is against levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”).

3.

Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case assessment was completed u/s 144/147 of the Act on 16.12.2019. The AO also initiated penalty

271(1)(b) of the Act for not complying with the notice dated 01/11/2019 u/s 142(1) issued during assessment proceedings. Accordingly, AO issued a notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and thereafter, vide penalty order dated 22/02/2022 levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- 271(1)(b) for not complying with the statutory notice issued by the AO. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who sustained the penalty. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had shifted from Dehradun to Delhi in the year 2007 and the changed address was updated in the bank account. However, the notice was sent at the old Dehradun address and was not received by the assessee and as such assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not complying with the statutory notice. He prayed that there was no deliberate or willful fault on the part of the assessee for non-compliance of the notice and therefore the impugned penalty levied by the authorities below may be cancelled.

5.

Learned DR opposed the above submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below.

6.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. For the reasons stated by the learned counsel I am of the considered view

AO. I, therefore, direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Grounds of appeal are allowed.

7.

Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 11th August, 2023.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →