Income Tax

Penalty 271B deleted as notices uploaded on portal only & assessee was a divorcee lady

Penalty u/s 271B deleted as notices were uploaded on portal only, assessee being a divorcee lady could not access income tax portal

In a recent judgment ITAT has deleted the penalty u/s 271B as the notices were uploaded on the portal only and assessee was a divorcee lady and was defending false complaints filed by her husband and could not access income tax portal. 

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3872 (2024) (02) ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC in confirming the income tax penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for non compliances of the notice issued.

Before the Tribunal the assessee submitted that the impugned penalties have been levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings. Drawing attention of the Tribunal to the Assessment Order it was submitted that these notices were uploaded on the income tax portal and none of the notices were served on the assessee.

It was further submitted that the assessee is a divorcee lady living alone with her minor son. That her husband was already married to another lady before marriage with the assessee and her estranged husband has made false complaints with the income tax authorities to harass the assessee.

It was submitted that the assessee on the one hand is trying to cope up and look after her only minor son and on the other hand is defending the complaints filed by her husband.

It was submitted that non compliances of the notice was not intentional but due to the fact that such notices were never sent to the assessee and being a divorcee lady, the assessee could not look in the instant appeal, the assessee had challenged the order of CIT(A) in confirming the income tax portal.

The Tribunal opined that reasons explained for on compliance by the assessee were justified for want of proper service of the notice upon her.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to deleted the penalty.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Non-deduction of TDS does not make transaction as unexplained in the hands of deductee – ITAT

Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…

2 days ago
  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

6 days ago