TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 954
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observed that this matter came up for hearing on 25.11.2025, 12.11.2026 and thereafter on 10.03.2026 where none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It was further observed that the Tribunal vide its order sheet dated 12.01.2026 had granted the assessee a final opportunity to represent his case, failing which an ex-parte order would be passed. Inspite of the same, neither the assessee nor his authorized representative appeared, not was any adjournment application filed by the assessee. In the absence of the same, we hereby proceed to dispose of this appeal by hearing the Learned Departmental Representative ("Ld. DR" for short) and on perusal of the materials available on record. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e penalty of Rs. 20,000/for alleged non compliance of 2 notices U/s 142(1) as stated in the penalty order dated 06.02.23 and 15.03.23 for compliance on 20.02.23 and 22.03.23 respectively. 4) That without prejudice to the foregoing ground the learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the assessee had reasonable cause for non compliance of notices U/s 142(1) of the Act on account of bonafide belief that he was not required to comply with the notices U/s 142(1) as he was not liable to pay any tax under the Income-tax Act as the tax has already been deducted at Source. 5) That the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in rejecting the assessee's explanation for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiated by the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 15.07.2024 was passed by the Ld. AO where penalty amounting to Rs. 20,000/- was levied for noncompliance of two notices u/s 142(1) dated 06.02.2023 and 15.03.2023 respectively. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide order dated 18.07.2025 upheld the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the abovementioned grounds. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. The issue that requires adjudication is whether the lower authorities were justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee's contention that on a bonafide belief that the assessee was not required to file his return of income and also to reply to the notices who was also not assisted by a tax advisor, cannot be a bonafide reason for non-compliance as per Ld. CIT(A). Before us there was neither any representation nor any written submission made by the assessee justifying why penalty should not be levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. For adjudication of the issue in hand, we hereby reproduce the relevant provision for ease of reference: "1 [271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.- (1) If the 2 [Assessing Officer] or the (***) [Joint Commissioner (Appeals)] or the [Commissioner (Appeals)] or the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner] to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him,] then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." 8. On a bare perusal of the said provision it is evident that the Ld. AO may direct the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for each failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act where the assessee ....