TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of notices issued under section 142(1) dated 05.11.2019 and 19.11.2019. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, required for adjudication of this case are that the assessee, a Chartered Accountant employed with M/s Jindal Power Limited, filed his original Income Tax Return ('ITR') of the relevant year on 23.07.2012 declaring income of Rs. 30,410/-. Later, the assessee revised the said return on 24.07.2012 declaring income of Rs. 58,22,480/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 148 of the Act. During the course of reopened assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO') issued show-caused not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without reasonable cause. In the present case, the assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued under Section 142(1) on 29.12.2020 and 30.01.2021, and no reasonable cause has been demonstrated for such failure. The ld.AO has passed a well-reasoned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the penalty levied is in accordance with the law. The assessee's explanation that the non-compliance was due to the previous counsel's failure to intimate them about the notices is not convincing and does not constitute a reasonable cause. It is the assessee's primary obligation to ensure compliance with statutory notices, and they cannot shift the responsibility to their counsel. The relationship between the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alized at Raipur. Noncompliance on the part of the assessee was not intentional as he did not derive benefit there from. Further, the Ld. AR contended that the said penalty was barred by limitation as the initial notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued on 29.12.2019 and that two after two days from the date of completion of assessment. The said penalty should have been levied within six months from the end of the month as it had no linkage/correlation with the assessment. Thus, the penalty got barred by limitation on 30.06.2020. However, the Ld. AO levied penalty vide order dated 09.06.2021. As the said penalty had no correlation with the income assessed and appeal pending against thereon as the pending appeal had no bearing on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....non-compliance on the part of assessee. It was submitted that the assessee had neither received any alert on his mobile number nor on his personal email though both were mentioned in the ITR. Further, the assessee had not seen his Income Tax Portal regularly to know pending actions at his end, which resulted noncompliance. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that the assessee had never received any notice in physical mode/post/by hand as the assessee was residing at Raigarh, whereas the assessment proceedings were going on at Raipur. 7. Basically, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act is strictly an administrative or procedural penalty. It is levied for failing to comply with statutory notices. The penalty proceedings under Sec....