Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Income Tax - Highlights / Catch Notes

Home Highlights September 2024 Year 2024 This

Penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with ...


Tax Penalty Dismissed: Tribunal Rules COVID-19 Restrictions Justify Non-Compliance with Documentary Evidence Requirements.

September 7, 2024

Case Laws     Income Tax     AT

Penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with documentary evidence requirements was challenged by the assessee, citing COVID-19 restrictions as a reasonable cause. The Tribunal held that in the prevailing pandemic situation, it was unreasonable for tax authorities to expect strict compliance from the assessee. The failure to furnish information/documents during the reassessment proceedings was attributable to the subsistence of COVID-19, which prevented effective compliance. Demanding documentary evidence to prove the reasonable cause of COVID-19 restrictions suggested non-application of mind by the authorities. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's recognition of COVID-19 restrictions and held that the pandemic situation, along with the apex court's order, formed a reasonable cause u/s 273B, exculpating the assessee from penalty u/s 272A(1)(d). Consequently, the penalty order was set aside as unwarranted.

View Source

 


 

You may also like:

  1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a notice issued u/s 142(1) during reassessment proceedings....

  2. Restriction on rebate / refund of duty - Rule 18 and Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017 amended so as to exclude Petrol, Diesel and ATF - Notification

  3. CESTAT rejected appeals for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, due to appellant's non-appearance at hearings without valid justification. Following...

  4. Adjustment of excess service tax paid with subsequent service tax liability - case of Revenue is that Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 do not provide for such...

  5. The High Court held that the delay of 80 days in filing the Return of Income should be condoned as the petitioner faced genuine hardship due to valid reasons arising...

  6. Section 271(1)(c) penalty was held invalid due to improper issuance of notice, as no proceedings were pending when the notice was issued on 19.12.2019. Section 271A...

  7. Renewal of approval under proviso (ii) (b) to section 17 (2) (viii) - approval for providing treatment for Covid-19 patients - Since the show cause notice issued relies...

  8. MCA’s Frequently Asked Questions on eligibility of CSR expenditure related to COVID-19 activities - News

  9. Relaxation in adherence to prescribed timelines issued by SEBI due to Covid 19 - Circular

  10. COVID-19 related Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) - Circular

  11. Preventive measures to be taken to contains the spread of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Trade Notice

  12. The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving the levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1) due to the Accountant's Covid-19...

  13. The Central Government amended Rule 18 and Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017. Rule 18 relates to rebate of duty, wherein the first proviso before the explanation...

  14. The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee did not disclose non-eligibility...

  15. The court rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of a 216-day delay in filing their Income Tax Returns (ITRs). The reasons cited by the petitioner, delay...

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates