GOPALAPILLAI SREEKUMAR,KOLLAM, KERALA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II

ITA 45/CTK/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the assessee, Gopal Pillai Sreekumar, against penalties levied by the Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar, under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The penalties were imposed due to alleged non-compliance with statutory notices. However, the assessee argued that the assessments were completed under section 153A read with section 143(3), indicating compliance. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangha Bhavan Trust vs ADIT, to support its decision to delete the penalties.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473636 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangha Bhavan Trust vs ADIT, 115 TTJ 419 (Del)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.C.MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBIT KUMAR SAHU
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL ITA No.45 ITA No.4 ITA No.47 Gopal Pillai Sreekumar, Sooranad, Kollam, Kerala 690522 PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench These are of the ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) assessment year 2. Shri Subit Kumar Sahu S.C.Mohanty, Sr. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 45/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : ITA No.46/CTK/2025 : Assessment Year : 47/CTK/2025 : Assessment Year : 2016 Gopal Pillai Sreekumar, Sooranad, Kollam, Kerala- Vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar No.AKMPS 1435 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Subit Kumar Sahu, Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 28/01/20 Date of Pronouncement : 28/01/20 O R D E R These are appeals filed by the assessee against the of the ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2, all dated 13.11.2024 penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs.10,000/- essment years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17,, respectively Subit Kumar Sahu, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 /CTK/2025 : Assessment Year :2015-16 CTK/2025 : Assessment Year : 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Central 2, Bhubaneswar Respondent) Adv : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 2025 025 filed by the assessee against the separate orders 13.11.2024 confirming the each for the , respectively. the assessee and Shri ITA No.45/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.46/CTK/2025 : Assessment Year :2015-16 ITA No.47/CTK/2025 : Assessment Yea r : 2016-17 P a g e 2 | 4 3. Ld AR drew our attention to the respective assessment orders and penalty orders, which have been passed under: Asst.Year Assessment order dt. Penalty order dt. 2014-15 25.9.2021 17.3.2022 2015-16 25.9.2021 17.3.2022 2016-17 25.9.2021 17.3.2022 It was the submission that the penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act solely due to non compliance of notices issued to the assessee. It was the submission that the assessment was completed u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and thus, there remains no question of non-compliance during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, he prayed for deletion of the penalty so levied. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the levy of penalty. It was the submission that the penalty is levied due to non-compliance of notices and, therefore, the levy of penalty should be confirmed. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. It is seen that although the AO has levied penalty in all the assessment years for non-compliance of statutory notices, however, at the same time, he has passed orders for all the assessment years’ u/s. 153A r.w.s 143(3) and not u/s.144 of the Act. Had there been non-compliance by the assessee, the orders should have been passed u/s.144 of the Act. The ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangha Bhavan Trust vs ADIT, 115 TTJ ITA No.45/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.46/CTK/2025 : Assessment Year :2015-16 ITA No.47/CTK/2025 : Assessment Yea r : 2016-17 P a g e 3 | 4 419 (Del) held that where the assessee had not complied the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, but the assessment order has been passed u/s.143(3) and not u/s.144 of the Act, that meant that subsequent compliance of the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and default committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing officer. Therefore, levy of penalty u/s.171(1)(b) of the Act was not justified. Since the facts in all the appeals are identical of the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangha Bhavan Trust (supra),by respectfully following the same, the penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act is hereby deleted as in the instant cases also, as the assessments were finally completed u/s.153A r w.s143(3) of the Act and not u/s.144 of the Act. 7. In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 28/01/2025. Sd/- sd/- (George Mathan) (Manish Agarwal) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 28/01/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA No.45/CTK/2025: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.46/CTK/2025 : Assessment Year :2015-16 ITA No.47/CTK/2025 : Assessment Yea r : 2016-17 P a g e 4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Gopal Pillai Sreekumar, Sooranad, Kollam, Kerala-690522 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)- Bhubaneswar-2. 4. Pr.CIT, Bhub aneswar-2. 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "