DEVRAJ VISHWASRAO JADHAV,PUNE V. ITO WARD 3, SATARA

ITA 1002/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Devraj Vishwasrao Jadhav against a penalty of Rs. 40,000 imposed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Satara, for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 during the assessment year 2015-16. The penalties were levied for each instance of non-compliance. The assessee argued that the notices sought the same information and thus should not multiply the default. The Tribunal agreed with this perspective, citing various decisions that supported the view that multiple notices for the same information do not constitute multiple defaults. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000, confirming only the first instance of non-compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778743 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAYAG JHA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1002/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Devraj Vishwasrao Jadhav, R.No.06, S.No.24, Dreams Rhythm, Opposite Talathi Office, Bavdhan, Pune 411 021 Maharashtra PAN : AEBPJ6968F Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Satara Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is against the order dated 11.04.2025 of CIT(A)/NFAC, passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of Penalty Order dated 15.09.2023 passed u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. The only issued raised in the instant appeal is whether the ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer levying penalty of Rs.40,000/- u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the submissions filed before the lower authorities and further submitted that where the notices have been issued by the ld. AO, one after the another, on three different occasions seeking Appellant by : Dr. Prayag Jha Respondent by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 23.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 14.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1002/PUN/2025 Devraj Vishwasrao Jadhav 2 the same information, it will not multiply the default and it would constitute a single default and therefore prayed for deletion of the penalty by virtue of various decisions passed by this Tribunal on this very issue. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that for non compliance to the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act issued by ld. AO, the penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act @ Rs.10,000/- for each non-compliance has been imposed totalling to Rs.40,000/-. From perusal of the assessment order, we find that during the course of assessment proceedings on the initial occasion assessee did not submit the details but subsequently furnished part of the information vide reply dated 09.02.2023. It has also been claimed that assessee has been prevented for ‘reasonable cause’ for not appearing on the dates of hearing fixed by ld. AO. We find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that where the notices have been issued by the AO, one after the another, on three different occasions seeking the same information, it will not multiply the default and it would constitute a single default and the issue is no longer res integra by virtue of plethora of decisions passed by various Benches of this Tribunal. In light of the same and considering the provisions of section 273B of the Act, we are of the view that penalty for the first non- compliance deserves to be confirmed and for the subsequent non-compliance penalty deserves to be deleted. We therefore restrict the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act to one default as against three defaults treated by the ld.AO. Accordingly, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1002/PUN/2025 Devraj Vishwasrao Jadhav 3 penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act is confirmed to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and remaining penalty of Rs.30,000/- is hereby directed to be deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 14th day of October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 14th October, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "