2022 (12) TMI 1405 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) - non-complying with the notice u/s 142(1) - HELD THAT - We find that on receipt of notice u/s 142(1) dated 05.09.2019, the appellant sought time for 15 days to file the required details and the requisite details were filed on 04.11.2019. When the appellant sought time to file the details, the said application was not disposed of by the Assessing Officer either rejecting the said application or granting time.Ultimately the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income. Thus, it will conclusively prove that no prejudice was caused to the AO on account of non-complying with the notice u/s 142(1) issued on 05.09.2019 and inaction of the Assessing Officer on the adjournment petition moved by the assessee would also enable the appellant to believe that the time to comply with the extension of time as prayed was granted. It cannot be said that the appellant is guilty of contumacious conduct to comply with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Thus, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeals against penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) - Non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act

The appeals were filed against the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance with notices u/s 142(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had levied a penalty of Rs.10,000 for non-compliance of the notice. The appellant had sought time to file the required details upon receiving the notice u/s 142(1) but the application was not disposed of by the Assessing Officer. The assessment was eventually completed accepting the returned income, showing that no prejudice was caused due to the delay in complying with the notice. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not guilty of contumacious conduct, and the penalty was unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.10,000.

Issue 2: Commonality of Facts and Decisions in Multiple Appeals

The Tribunal noted that identical facts and common issues were involved in all the appeals filed by different assessees for the assessment year 2017-18. As a result, the Tribunal decided to dispose of all the appeals by a common order. The decision taken in the first appeal (ITA No. 324/PUN/2022) was applied mutatis mutandis to the remaining three appeals (ITA Nos. 359, 360 & 361/PUN/2022) for the same assessment year. The Tribunal allowed all four appeals, emphasizing the commonality of facts and issues involved.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune allowed the appeals filed by different assessees against the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. The Tribunal found that the penalty was unwarranted due to the lack of prejudice caused by the delayed compliance with the notice u/s 142(1) and the inaction of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering individual circumstances before levying penalties and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalties imposed.