Repeated non-compliance notices treated as one default; penalty restricted where reasonable cause under section 273B was accepted.

Penalty for failure to comply with repeated notices seeking the same information under section 142(1) was treated as a single default, not multiple defaults, because later notices did not create separate substantive non-compliances. Applying section 273B, the Tribunal accepted reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance and held that only the first default attracted penalty. The penalty was therefore restricted to one instance and sustained only to the extent of Rs.10,000, with the balance deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed for successive non-compliances to notices under section 142(1) could be treated as multiple defaults or only as a single default, and whether the penalty was liable to be restricted in view of section 273B.

Analysis: The appeal concerned levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) for failure to comply with repeated notices seeking the same information. The assessee had subsequently furnished part of the information and invoked reasonable cause for the initial non-appearance and non-compliance. The Tribunal held that repeated notices seeking the same information would not multiply the default and that the matter was covered by the settled view of the Tribunal. Applying section 273B, the Tribunal found that only the first non-compliance warranted penalty and the later non-compliances did not justify separate penalties.

Conclusion: The penalty was restricted to one default and sustained only to the extent of Rs.10,000, with the balance penalty of Rs.30,000 deleted.

---