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 >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Prevention of Corruption Act

CBDT Instruction can not absolve persons to explain source of gold within limits specified – SC

Mere CBDT Instructions cannot absolve individuals of their obligation to explain the source and nature of their gold holdings, even…

2 days ago
  • ICSI

Empanelment of General Observers for ICSI Examinations December 2026. Last date 16.11.2026

Empanelment of General Observers for ICSI Examinations December 2026 ICSI has invited interested members to enroll as General Observers for…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT address some important issues relating to deduction u/s 80IA

ITAT answers some important and inter-related issues relating to deduction u/s 80IA In a recent judgment, ITAT has dealt with…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Mere carry forward of loss can not be denied for belated return – ITAT

Carry forward of loss can not be denied for belated return, it is only the set off in subsequent year…

2 weeks ago
  • Income Tax

Sales duly recorded in books & VAT returns, can’t be held bogus without cogent adverse material

Where sales are duly recorded in books and VAT returns, to treat it bogus sales, AO must bringing cogent adverse…

2 weeks ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT allows Diwali expenses incurred by assessee as business expenses

Expenses to celebrate Diwali with staff creates a goodwill and, therefore amounts to expenses incurred for the purpose of business…

2 weeks ago