Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) can not be imposed when assessment order passed u/s 143(3) not best judgment assessment u/s 144
ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3417 (2020) (10) ITAT
Important case law relied upon by the parties:
Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. ADIT [2008] 115 TTJ 419 (Del.)
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The Assessing Officer (AO) had imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance by the assessee with respect to the statutory notices issued under the Act.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal where it had taken the view that though the penalty proceedings had been initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for alleged non-compliance, the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment orders u/s 143(3) of the Act and not as best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act meaning thereby that the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as a good compliance and the default committed earlier was condoned by the Assessing officer and, therefore, the impugned penalties u/s 271(1)(b) could not have been levied by.
Per Contra, the Revenue submitted that no reasonable cause had been demonstrated by the assessees for failure to comply with the statutory notices and, therefore, the penalty levied was legally correct and that a hyper technical view should not be taken and further that the subsequent passing of assessment orders u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer did not mean that the defaults committed earlier by the assessees were ignored.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A), while dismissing the assessees’ appeals had observed that subsequent compliance by the assessee to the statutory notice cannot be a basis for non levy of penalty on account of earlier defaults.
The CIT(A) had also observed that the claim of the assessees that no penalty is leviable since the assessment orders had been issued u/s 143(3) was not acceptable as the impugned penalty had been levied for specific defaults on specific dates.
The Tribunal noted the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench and observed that the Department had not pointed out any order in favour of the Department in this regard.
Therefore, following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
Mere CBDT Instructions cannot absolve individuals of their obligation to explain the source and nature of their gold holdings, even…
Empanelment of General Observers for ICSI Examinations December 2026 ICSI has invited interested members to enroll as General Observers for…
ITAT answers some important and inter-related issues relating to deduction u/s 80IA In a recent judgment, ITAT has dealt with…
Carry forward of loss can not be denied for belated return, it is only the set off in subsequent year…
Where sales are duly recorded in books and VAT returns, to treat it bogus sales, AO must bringing cogent adverse…
Expenses to celebrate Diwali with staff creates a goodwill and, therefore amounts to expenses incurred for the purpose of business…