JATINDER KUMAR AHUJA, BAHRAIN vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2608/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2023AY 2012-133 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 held that the assessee had replied to the AO's notice via email, indicating cooperation. Therefore, it was not a case of non-cooperation warranting a penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident employed abroad, failed to comply with notices issued under section 142(1) by the AO. The AO imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(b) for this non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under section 271(1)(b) is leviable for non-compliance with a notice under section 142(1) when the assessee has shown some form of cooperation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.05.2023Pronounced: 26.05.2023

O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.09.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 43, New Delhi (“CIT(A)”) whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) for Assessment Year (“AY”) 2012-13.

2.

The Ld. AO initiated the impugned penalty proceedings for failure by the assessee to comply with the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 05.12.2019. Hearing was fixed for 09.01.2020 requiring the assessee to show cause why penalty under section 271(1)(b) be not imposed. Neither the assessee attended nor any reply was filed. Final opportunity of hearing on 02.12.2020 was also availed. The Ld. AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has nothing to say in the matter. He, therefore, imposed the impugned penalty.

3.

On appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee stated that he is non-resident, employed abroad and is hardly in India. Also the address available with the Ld. AO is of the previous employer and was left by the assessee in the year 2008. Certificate of the previous employer was submitted. The address with the Ld. AO was of the accommodation provided by the previous employer. Certificate from the UAE new employer was also filed. It was explained that the assessee could not receive the notices sent manually by the Ld. AO at the old address. The assessee was therefore prevented to comply with the notices under the circumstances beyond his control. It was urged that the impugned penalty be deleted.

4.

Since additional evidence was sought to be admitted, the Ld. CIT(A) obtained the remand report from the Ld. AO who objected to the admittance of additional evidence stating, interalia that the assessee had received notice under section 142(1) of the Act through his father. In the light of the remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the impugned penalty. This has brought the assessee before the Tribunal.

5.

We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the records. The facts are not in dispute that the assessee is a non-resident, employed abroad and is hardly in India. Nonetheless the assessee placed on record e-mail correspondence which shows that the assessee replied to the notice issued by the Ld. AO. Therefore, it is not a case of non-cooperation with the Department. We are, therefore, of the view that it is not a fit case for imposition of the impugned penalty which we hereby cancel.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th May, 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 →