TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1033
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant had subsequently submitted a detailed reply 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO but not found acceptable. 7. During the course of penalty appellate proceedings, the assessee 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence in favour of the contentions of the appellant is no more than a statement based on conjectures and surmises. The contentions 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 n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....272A(1)(d) is excessive and arbitrary, particularly in light of the appellant's full compliance with other statutory notices and submissions during the assessment proceedings. The penalty 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 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04-2024 26.04.2024 A perusal of the aforesaid table clearly shows that the assessee was very particular in compliance of each and every notice before the Ld. AO. However, the delay in submitting the reply to notice dated 11.10.2023 was genuine and bonafide and the request for adjournment was filed stating that: "Respected Officer, Due to illness in my 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." 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee in response to subsequent notice, in our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer ought not to have levied penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of a single notice. This legal position is supported by the judicial pronouncement passed by ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of P.C. Pantulu Vs. DCIT in ITA No.276/Hyd/2017 dt.11.04.2018. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has erred in levying the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act and the 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 issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de, the mistake appears to be bonafide. The assessee has been able to show reasonable cause for the failure to comply with statutory notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Thus, in our view penalty levied u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act is unsustainable. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty. In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed." Therefore, considering the facts of the case it cannot be said that the assessee has not complied with notice issued by the Assessing Officer from time 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 speci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Gyan Mata Radha Satyam Kriyayog Ashram Research Institute Vs ITO (ITAT-Allahabad),-25/02/2021-Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of Section 273B of the Act when the assessee has finally complied with the notice issued by the Assessing Officer the penalty is not imposable as the explanation filed by the assessee was finally found to be correct and accepted in the quantum appeal. Consequently, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act is deleted. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appreciate the genuine and bonafide reason specified by the assessee. This action of Ld. AO and Hon'ble CIT is unjustified and considering the facts of the case the penalty imposed on the assessee deserves to be deleted in the interest of justice. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clearly evident that there was no intentional non-compliance and the subsequent reply covers the information as requested by the Ld. A.O. further the case of the assessee covers under section 273B as well which clearly state about the reasonable cause. PRAYER It is therefore, humbly prayed to consider the reply filed and in pursuance of 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 acknowle....