SMT KANTA RANI W/O SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE, JALANDHAR

ITA 38/ASR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Kanta Rani, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar, for non-compliance with a notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty of Rs. 27,400 was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana. The appellant contested the penalty, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for non-compliance, and argued that the notice was only served via email and not by post. The Tribunal found that the notice was indeed served correctly and upheld the penalty but limited it to the period excluding the COVID-19 exempted timeframe as per the Supreme Court's directive.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114603 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 38/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Kanta Rani, Model Town, Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar, 144 740 [PAN: AHHPR 0125M] (Appellant) V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Nirmal Mahajan, CA Respondent by Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 07.06.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana dated 25.11.2022 in respect of AY 2013-14 challenging therein levy of penalty of I.T.A. No. 38/Asr/2023 Kanta Rani v. Jt. CIT 2 Rs.27,400/- u/s 272A(2)(c) for non-compliance of notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) by restricting to Rs.27,400/- out of Rs.59,100/- in non-compliance to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act without taking into consideration the Covid period being exempted by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The counsel has also contended that assessee was sent notice on e-mail but was not served any notice by the post. He pleaded that the penalty confirmed may be deleted or modify by excluding exempted Covid period. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR stands by the impugned order. 4. We have heard both the sides and perusal of records, impugned order and the written submissions. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had noted that the show cause notice could only be sent through e-mail. However, there was non-compliance to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, in spite of the fact that the notice having been served on the assessee. The ld. AR argued that the appellant assessee has updated his e-mail on the Income-Tax Portal on 29.03.2019. However, he has not I.T.A. No. 38/Asr/2023 Kanta Rani v. Jt. CIT 3 informed the AO regarding this change of e-mail address of the appellant. We understand that if an e-mail address is updated on the Income Tax Portal on 29.03.2019, then the subsequent communications by the Income Tax Authorities would automatically uploaded on the system and send to the updated new e-mail address of the appellant assessee. It is further, seen from pg. no. 36 of the paper book, that the assessee had done last login on 12 th April, 2023 at 11.58 AM on the updated e-mail address which shows that he has not done any communication of the Income Tax proceedings taken by the Income Tax Department against him by way of notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. Thus, the contention of the assessee, that assessee has not been served the notice u/s 133(6) is factually incorrect. 5. However, the assessee’s request that the quantum appeal of penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) may be limited to the period excluding the Covid period exempted by the Apex Court is justified. Accordingly, AO is directed to levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) for the period of 30.07.2019 to 14.04.2020, in the light of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment delivered on miscellaneous application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020 whereby their I.T.A. No. 38/Asr/2023 Kanta Rani v. Jt. CIT 4 Lordship has extended period of limitation for any such appeal application or proceedings from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021. 6. In the above view, penalty levied u/s 272A(2)(c) is restricted for the period from 30.07.2019 to 14.03.2020. According, the AO is directed to re- compute the penalty amount for the period restricted as above. 7. In the backdrop of the above discussion, the appeal of the assessee stand allowed in the terms indicated as above. Order pronounced in the open court on 07 .06.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr./P.S.* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order