TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1033
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eply addressing the notice and fully cooperated in the assessment proceedings. It is humbly submitted that the penalty order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the appellant's delay in compliance with the notice dated 11.10.2023 was due to genuine and reasonable causes, as specified under Section 273B of the Act. The appellant provided a valid explanation citing unavoidable personal circumstances, including illness in the family, and had proactively requested an extension. Additionally, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant deliberately avoided compliance, despite evidence demonstrating that all subsequent notices were duly complied with in a timely manner. This establishes that there was no willful or intentional non-compliance, and the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was wrongly imposed. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 272A(1)(d) are not absolute in nature and are subject to reasonable cause as contemplated under Section 273B of the Act. The explanation provided by the appellant was ignored without proper reasoning, thereby viola....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has furnished written submission on 04.01.2025 stating the assessee had duly complied of each and every notice of the LD.AO. However, the delay in submitting the reply to notice dated 11.10.2023 was genuine and bona fide. Further, the assessee has merely stated that he has filed an appeal against the said assessment order, however, has failed to bring on record the reasonable cause for non-compliance to the various statutory notices issued. The Assessee has failed to discharge the primary onus cast upon him to furnish any reasons as to why the penalty should not be levied in his case and as to why the provisions of section 272A(1)(d) of the Act are not applicable to his case. There is a well- known dictum of law "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt which means that the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who are careless of their right. Law confers rights on persons who are vigilant of their rights. The assessee has failed to discharge his duty, exercise his rights to be heard and has scant regard for due process of law. Therefore, there is no other option but to finalize the proceedings based on material available on record. Based on the facts and circ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontentions of the appellant do not appear to be plausible. 10. Based on the facts mentioned above in detail, it is evident that the appellant did not file any reply in response to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 11.10.2023 and that during the penalty proceedings and also during the penalty appellate proceedings could not justify the non-submission of reply to the statutory notice. Assessee has not filed any documentary evidence/information in support of his contention, although, sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the appellant for the same. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the appellant has deliberately avoided making compliance during the course of assessment proceedings with respect to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 11.10.2023. Hence, penalty imposed by the AO u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for non- compliance of notice dated 11.10.2023 amounting to Rs. 10,000/-is hereby upheld. Thus, ground no. 1 is dismissed. 11. Ground no. 2 are general in nature and hence does not required any adjudication. Hence, Ground no. 2 is dismissed. 12. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. 5.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty ought to be quashed in the interest of justice. 5. The appellant reserves the right to amend, alter, modify, or withdraw any grounds of appeal and to submit additional grounds as may be deemed necessary. The Brief facts of the case were that: The brief facts of the case are that for the F.Y. 2018-19, the case of the assessee was opened for reassessment u/s 148 and notices were issued. In response, the assessee submitted the reply. The details of the notices issued and replied by the assessee were as under: Date of notice Under Section Issued By Response due dates Reply submitted on 09.02.2023 148A ITO, Pune-13(2) 01.03.2023 22.02.2023 29.03.2023 148 ITO, Pune-13(2) 14.04.2023 11.10.2023 142(1) Faceless Assessment 23.10.2023 05.11.2023 20.10.2023 143(2) Faceless Assessment 31.10.2023 05.11.2023 & 13.11.2023 14.02.2024 142(1) Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur 22.02.2024 21.02.2024 03.03.2024 147 Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur 07.03.2024 04.03.2024 14.03.2024 144C Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur 17.03.2024 & 26.04.2024 The assessment order was passed by Ld. DCIT, Intl. Tax, Jaipur dated 17.05.2024, u/s 147 r.w.s 144C (3). Thereafter, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all the documents required in the response. Kindly grant me extension till November 15th 2023 to submit the response with required documents. Thanks, Amit Jain." Then thereafter the assessee filed the reply on 13.11.2023 i.e. before 15/11/2023 as time requested. The Ld. A.O. never declined the additional time requested by the assessee and Subsequent notices were also complied with promptly, evidencing the assessee's intention to fully cooperate.. Moreover, the assessee has been asked for a reply within a time span of 8 to 10 days. Notably, the assessee was residing in Jersey, United States of America, where the time zone is behind by 10 hours and 30 minutes as compared to India. The information sought pertains to the year 2018-19 and the reply can only be filed after getting the requisite details from the bank and papers lying at India. Thus the regular compliance by the assessee and singly delay that too because of justified reason and with the proper request for allowing some more time clearly shows that there was intentional avoidance. In the present case, the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) is not sustainable in light of Section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld.CIT(A) without appreciating the facts sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 2) Hanuman Prasad & Sons Vs DCIT/ACIT/ITO (ITAT Allahabad) Appeal Number: ITA No. 20/ALLD/2022, 13/09/2022- It is concluded by the Hon'ble Bench as under:- "Once the assessee has made the compliance though after some delay but it was well before the assessment order was framed and the penalty order dated 10.1.2022. Therefore, it is not a case of non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the notice issued under section 142(1) dated 18.11.2019 but the compliance was made belatedly. Hence, the assessee made the compliance and the assessment was framed after considering the reply and document filed by the assessee then it does not fall in the category of non-compliance by the assessee at all. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee finally complied with the notice and the Assessing Officer has duly considered the reply and the documents filed by the assessee while fra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime to time for completion of the assessment. Further, even if there is any non-compliance of the notice but subsequently, if the assessee replies to any notice issued by the Assessing Officer and such reply covers all the issues raised by the Assessing Officer in earlier notices issued under various sections, then it cannot be said that the assessee has not complied with the details sought by the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the appellant's delay in compliance with the notice dated 11.10.2023 was due to genuine and reasonable causes, as specified under Section 273B of the Act. The appellant provided a valid explanation citing unavoidable personal circumstances, including illness in the family, and had proactively requested an extension. Additionally, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant deliberately avoided compliance, despite evidence demonstrating that all subsequent notices were duly complied with in a timely manner. This establishes that there was no willful or intentional non-compliance, and the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was wrongly imposed. In respect of thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot appreciating that the provisions of Section 272A(1)(d) are not absolute in nature and are subject to reasonable cause as contemplated under Section 273B of the Act. The explanation provided by the appellant was ignored without proper reasoning, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 4. In reference to this ground, In the assessment proceedings the assessee had duly complied to each and every notice of the Ld. AO and there the delay in submitting the reply to notice dated 11.10.2023 only that too with the genuine and Bonafide reason. The reason for delay is quoted here as under:- "Respected Officer, Due to illness in family, I am away from home, and I do not have access to all the documents required in the response. Kindly grant me extension till November 15th 2023 to submit the response with required documents. Thanks, Amit Jain." The reason specified by the assessee comes under the reasonable cause as per the provisions of the section-273B of the Act which clearly specifies that no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts submitted and the legal pronouncement submitted by the assessee, the penalty imposed of Rs. 10,000/- to be deleted and penalty order dated 13.11.2024 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee has requested ld. AO to give time to the assessee and therefore, the contentions of the revenue that the notice not complied is not correct. In support of this contention, he filed acknowledgement no. 503262641051123 so as to support that the notice was not complied is incorrect fact but in fact the assessee sought time to furnish the reply. Therefore, levy of penalty is incorrect. Ld. AO did not deal with the contentions also while passing the penalty order. 7. Per contra, ld. DR submitted that reply of the assessee was general in nature and they have not justified the reasons for seeking adjournment the contentions so raised by the assessee has already been dealt with ld. CIT(A) vide para 9 of his order. Based on this contention, ld. DR relied upon the order of ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench n....