Penalty 271(1)(b) deleted as assessee furnished medical certificate of depression treatment

Penalty 271(1)(b) deleted as assessee had furnished medical certificate of treatment for depression and AO did not bring anything against the evidences of ill-health.

ABACUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3354 (2020) (08) ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming he levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading. The assessee filed the return of income which processed u/s 143(1).

Thereafter, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act to the assessee for which there was no compliance.

The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and a show cause notice was issued along with another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act.

However, again there was no response to the show cause notice and therefore the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in the hands of the assessee.

The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty as imposed/levied by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with the decision of the CIT(A), the assessee went in appeal to ITAT.

Penalty 271(1)(b) deleted on the strength of medical certificate 

The Tribunal noted that as per records, the assessee had submitted  before  the Assessing  Officer a  medical  certificate  from  a doctor stating that the assessee was under his treatment for depression with anxiety disorder for the last two years. 

However, the Assessing Officer still levied the  penalty  saying  that  the said medical certificate was not sufficient reason for non-compliance of the notice.

The Tribunal opined that the Assessing Officer had absolutely overlooked the facts on record which were genuine. Neither  the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had brought on record anything against the evidences  furnished by the assessee regarding his ill-health.   

The Tribunal held that the case was not fit for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act and accordingly deleted the penalty.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Jurisdictional error in reassessment approval can’t be shielded by the law of limitation
• ITAT ought to remanded whole matter of bogus purchases instead of profit determination
• Where proceedings u/s 153C barred by limitation, AO can’t invoke section 148 & 148A
• Corporate guarantees executed by corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC
• Canara Bank Online Concurrent Auditors Empanelment 2026-27. Last Date 09.05.2026