Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
The ITAT held that filing an adjournment application in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) does not constitute non-compliance under section 272A(1)(d). The assessee had replied to the notice seeking additional time, and there was no evidence that this request was rejected by a speaking order from the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty without addressing the fact that the adjournment request was unconsidered. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee made a valid compliance by responding to the notice, negating any willful avoidance. The penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) was therefore quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that filing an adjournment application in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) does not constitute non-compliance under section 272A(1)(d). The assessee had replied to the notice seeking additional time, and there was no evidence that this request was rejected by a speaking order from the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty without addressing the fact that the adjournment request was unconsidered. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee made a valid compliance by responding to the notice, negating any willful avoidance. The penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) was therefore quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
