2022 (1) TMI 589 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty order u/s. 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of the notices issued by the A.O. u/s 142(1) - assessee has shifted from Jaipur to Guwahati - HELD THAT - When the assessee has shifted from Jaipur to Guwahati and this fact is also substantiated by filing the return of income with ITO, Ward 3(3), Guwahati, then the assessee has proved that there was a reasonable cause for the failure and non-compliance of the notice U/s 142(1) of the Act as provided in Section 273B of the Act. Hence, the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is deleted. Appeal of assessee allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of penalty order u/s. 271(1)(b)
2. Compliance with notices issued by the Assessing Officer
3. Bonafide explanation for non-compliance of notices

Jurisdiction of penalty order u/s. 271(1)(b):
The appeal was against the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(b) dated 27/06/2019 by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for the A.Y. 2011-12. The appellant contended that the penalty order and notice were bad in law, illegal, lacked jurisdiction, and were barred by limitation. The ld. AR argued that the assessee, an individual, had shifted from Jaipur to Guwahati and filed the return of income with the ITO, Ward 3(3), Guwahati. The A.O. had issued notices assuming non-filing of the return, which the appellant claimed were not received due to the relocation. The appellant argued that the penalty was unjustified due to the lack of service of notices.

Compliance with notices issued by the Assessing Officer:
The ld. DR contended that the appellant incorrectly filed the return with the ITO, Ward 3(3), Guwahati, lacking jurisdiction, and thus could not use this as a reason for non-compliance with A.O.'s notices. The authorities upheld the non-compliance as clear, justifying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b). However, the appellant argued a reasonable and bonafide explanation for non-compliance due to the relocation and filing of the return with the Guwahati office.

Bonafide explanation for non-compliance of notices:
The A.O. issued notices initially to the Jaipur address, later realizing the appellant had shifted to Guwahati. The appellant had indeed filed the return with the Guwahati office. Considering the relocation and filing, the Tribunal found a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices, leading to the deletion of the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b). The Tribunal deemed the appellant's explanation as bonafide and justified, in line with Section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's reasonable cause for non-compliance due to relocation and filing of the return with the Guwahati office. The penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was deleted based on the bonafide explanation provided by the appellant.