TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["the Ld. CIT(A)"] erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer ["the Ld. AO"] in imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 2. ON MERITS: 2.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of non-response by the Appellant to certain notices issued online by the Assessing officer. 2.2. While doing so the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: i. The penalty so levied is in stark contravention of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act on account of non-response by the Appellant to certain notices issued online by the Assessing officer. 2.2. While doing so the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: i. The penalty so levied is in stark contravention of the extant law and based on irrelevant considerations while ignoring the relevant material, evidences and considerations; ii. The levy of such a penalty is not mandatory and the Ld. AO erred in not exercising fair and just discretion in the matter; and; The Appellant had duly explained that the reasons for non-appearance/ non-response were that the Director of the Appellant responsible for the necessary compliances was in a disturbed state of mind due to family issues and since the notices ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings, the Director could not concentrate on other work and all the notices went unattended. 2.2. It is further submitted that, the Chartered Accountant of the assessee changed, and the assessee was not able to take necessary steps in order to file responses to the notice received u/s 148 of the Act and subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1). The Ld.AO in Faceless assessment passed order u/s. 147 & u/s. 144 r.w.s.143(3) dated 17.03.2022 making addition in the hands of the assessee. 2.3. It is submitted that, on receiving call from the Tax demand Recovery, the erstwhile Director got help of a Consultant to review all Notices & Orders, contented earlier professional to calculate data & records, in order to file present appeal at the earl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies the imposition of the penalty. The appellant in its written submission dated 26.06.2024 has not submitted any convincing reasonable cause for total non-compliance with the statuary notices. The notices were sent by AO on the registered e-mail address of the appellant on which the present appeal notices are being sent. The email id [email protected] is Last Used E-Mail ID by any ITBA User and Primary Email Id as per e-filing profile of Assessee. The only issue remains that there seem no reason by the appellant for complete non-compliance towards statuary notices. I do not find any considerable reasonable cause from the side of assessee to allow the appeal. In such circumstances, I hold that this penalty was imposed in accordan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r sought any adjournment, therefore, the Ld.AO was right in levying of penalty for non-compliance with the statutory notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and his order should be upheld. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 5. Admittedly, there was a failure on the part of the assessee to respond to the noticed issued by the Ld.AO during assessment proceeding. However, the Legislature provides for immunity from levy of penalty wherever there was a reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In other words, section 273B provides for immunity from penalty wherever there was a reasonable cause. 5.1. An order imposing penalty ....