Income Tax

Assessee was liable to pay penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) on first default only – ITAT

Assessee was liable to pay penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) on the first default as thereafter, the AO could have proceeded to frame an ex-parte order – ITAT

In a recent judgment, ITAT has deleted the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) for multiple default in non-compliance to the notice holding that assessee liable to pay penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) on the first default as thereafter, the AO could have proceeded to frame an ex-parte order.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3897 (2024) (03) ITAT

Section 272A(d)(1) provides that if the assessee fails to comply with a notice u/s 142(1) or u/s 143(2) or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142, he shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such default or failure.

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC in confirming the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO).

The levy of penalty originated in the assessment order framed u/s 144 of the Act where the AO has issued five notices which were not responded by the assessee. This prompted the AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance with the notices, and for each default, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- totaling to Rs. 50,000/-.

This action of the AO was upheld by NFAC.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee stated that only two notices were sent on the address given in the PAN data base and other notices were sent to wrong address of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee could not attend the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that as per the details, the first two notices were issued to the assessee through speed-post and the same were not returned. Though, the report mentions five notices, and the penalty had been levied for each default.

The Tribunal opined that the assessee was liable to pay the penalty on the first default. Thereafter, the AO could have proceeded to frame an ex-parte order.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to levy a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- only and delete the balance. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

----------- Similar Posts: -----------
Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Excel Income Tax TDS Challan ITNS-281 with database Option for AY 2025-26 Version 1.6

Excel Income Tax TDS Challan ITNS-281 version 1.6 for AY 2025-26 with database facility  Income Tax Challan ITNS 281 is…

2 hours ago
  • Companies Act

MCA Relaxes additional fees & extends last date of filing LLP Form BEN-2 & Form No. 4D

MCA Relaxes additional fees & extends last date of filing LLP Form BEN-2 & Form No. 4D up to 01.07.2024…

2 hours ago
  • ICSI

Format of Annual Secretarial Compliance Report by Company Secretaries for Stock Exchanges

Up-to-date Format of Annual Secretarial Compliance Report by Company Secretaries for submission to Stock Exchanges MS Word Format of Annual…

4 hours ago
  • GST

E-Way Bill not present in vehicle only a technical violation. IGST Penalty order quashed

E-Way Bill not present in vehicle only a technical violation when E-Way Bill was downloaded prior to the interception of…

9 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Address in PAN vital & decisive to determine territorial jurisdiction of High Court

Residence address of assessee mentioned in PAN registration details is vital and decisive to determine territorial jurisdiction of High Court…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Challenge to intimation passed u/s 143(1) calls for independent adjudication – ITAT

Challenge to intimation passed u/s 143(1) calls for independent adjudication in terms of statutory dictate of Section 246A(1)(a) of the…

1 day ago