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

  • 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