DHODAMBE VIVIDH KARYAKARI SEVA SAH SO. LTD,NASHIK V. CIT(A), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1192/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dhodambe Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., a primary agricultural society based in a remote area of Maharashtra, which faced penalties for non-compliance with statutory notices during the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000 for non-responses to two notices under section 142(1). The society's appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal recognized the society's operational difficulties but upheld the need for compliance, ultimately reducing the penalty to Rs. 10,000.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831870 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UODOL RAJ SINGH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1192/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Dhodambe Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., A/p Dhodame, Chandwad, Nashik- 423117. PAN : AAAAD1551G Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the grounds of appeal raised along with the appeal Form No.35. Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Uodol Raj Singh Date of hearing : 11.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 22.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1192/PUN/2025 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that; The society is situated at a very small village place and people working in the society are not technosavy. Notices communicated electronically through emails were not checked regularly and hence same were communicated belatedly to the consultant and hence there was non-compliance to the statutory notices. 3. The appellant craves for leave to add alter amend delete etc the above grounds of appeal in the interest of natural justice.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a primary agricultural society doing business at a remote area of Maharashtra. During 143(3) assessment proceedings, response to two notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act was not made by the assessee and therefore, vide order dated 23.06.2023 penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of Rs.20,000/- was imposed by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved with the above penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide order dated 05.03.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1192/PUN/2025 3 on the basis of material available on record as well as after hearing Ld. DR. 7. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that admittedly there was non-compliance on two occasions before the Assessing Officer and therefore, penalty of Rs.10,000/- for each default was imposed totalling to Rs.20,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the IT Act. We find that the assessee society is situated at remote area and was working with only one staff, who was working part time and was also not well conversant with technology, which resulted in non-compliance before the Assessing officer. However, we find that it was the duty and responsibility of the assessee to comply with each and every notice issued by the Assessing Officer. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that if first notice was not complied, then the assessee was supposed to comply at least with the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the penalty of Rs.20,000/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1192/PUN/2025 4 imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the IT Act to Rs.10,000/- only. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 22nd January, 2026. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 4. The Pr.CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "