JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE V. ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL

ITA 213/IND/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting a penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for non-compliance with notices under sections 148 and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2018-19. The AO imposed a penalty due to the assessee's failure to file a return of income within the stipulated time after receiving the notices. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant lockdown, decided in favor of the assessee, setting aside the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785309 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORASSESSEETODODUE; ILA PARMAR; DRWITHSHRINIHARSAHU
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIHARSHVIJAYVARGIYA; THEDEPARTMENTWASNOTCALLEDFOR; FORASSESSEETODODUE
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; Non compliance
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 8 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 212 & 213/Ind/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd., 852, Sudama Nagar, Infront of Jain Mandir, Indore बनाम/ Vs. ACIT Central-2 Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAACJ8822E Assessee by Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, AR Revenue by Ms. Ila Parmar, CIT-DR with Shri Nihar Sahu Date of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: These two appeals filed by the Assessee Under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by orders in first appeal Number: CIT(A)-3, Bhopal/IT/10843/2014-16 & CIT(A)-3, Bhopal/IT/12504/2017- 18 both dated 29.01.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A), passed U/s 250 Printed from counselvise.com Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 212 & 213/Ind/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 & 2018-19 Page 2 of 8 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16 & 2018-19. First we take up ITANo.212/Ind/2025 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, a penalty of Rs.10,000/-( Ten thousand only) was imposed on the assessee, as the assessee had committed the default within the meaning of section 271(1)(b) of the Act by not furnishing return of income as per the provision of section 148 of the Act within 07 days for A.Y.2016-17, in response to notice dated 20.03.2020. 2.2 As show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued on 07.02.2021 and the assessee was asked to furnish the explanation on or before 12.02.2021 for non filling of return of income for A.Y.2015-16. That the notice was duly served on the assessee. However, the assessee did not comply to the above notice. A reminder for filing of return was also issued to the Printed from counselvise.com Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 212 & 213/Ind/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 & 2018-19 Page 3 of 8 assessee on 27.02.2021 but the assessee failed to furnish the return within due date. 2.3 Considering the above facts the Ld. AO was satisfied that the assessee has committed the default within the meaning of section 271(1)(b) of the Act, by not furnishing return of income on or before due date for A.Y.2016-17 & consequently imposed penalty at Rs.10,000/- for A.Y.2016-17 u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2.4 That the aforesaid order bears No.ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2020-21/1031909289(1) & that the same is dated 27.03.2021 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Penalty Order.” 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Penalty Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons for dismissal of the first appeal was as under in the Impugned order:- “4.DECISION Printed from counselvise.com Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 212 & 213/Ind/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 & 2018-19 Page 4 of 8 4.1. Ground No.1 to 2. I have considered the penalty order, issues involved in assessment and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant against the penalty order. In this case penalty of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was levied on appellant u/s 271(1)(b) of the 'Act'. During the assessment proceedings it has been observed that the assessee did not comply to the notices and did not furnish any reply despite of numerous opportunities provided to the appellant. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice under section 148 of the 'Act' and levied penalty of amount Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16. 4.1.2. On perusal of assessment records, I find that during the assessment proceedings, the appellant always failed to comply the notices issued to him. As per record, several opportunities have been given to the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Further, the Ld. AO has passed the assessment order u/s147 r.w.s 144 of the I.T.Act which proves that the appellant was provided ample opportunities to substantiate its claim, however, despite several opportunities being granted from time to time, there has been absolutely no compliance on the part of the appellant to give detailed explanation regarding grounds of appeal taken for the year under consideration. The appellant's overall attitude towards compliance during assessment as well as penalty proceeding has been absolute non compliance. There is a facility of electronic communication for compliance with the notices. The appellant at least could have informed AO about the issues/difficulties. But there was absolutely no compliance. It is very unreasonable that repeatedly the appellant prefers not to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the plea of the appellant that penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) for the A.Y. under consideration without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard is not sustainable and therefore, the claim of the appellant on these grounds are not acceptable. 4.1.3 In view of above discussions, I find no merit on the grounds raised by the appellant. Therefore, the levying of the above penalty is fully justified and proper and in accordance with the provisions made under the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal on ground no.1 to 2 are dismissed. 4.1.4. Ground No. 3:- Being general in nature, this ground does not require any specific adjudication. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” Printed from counselvise.com Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 212 & 213/Ind/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 & 2018-19 Page 5 of 8 2.6 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal & has raised following grounds of appeal in Form no.36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under: “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A)-3, Bhopal has erred in confirming the penalty levied by Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 10,000 U/s 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO has erred in passing and Ld. CIT (A)-3, Bhopal has erred in confirming the impugned order without affording any opportunity of being heard against the principles of natural justice. 3.That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal and all the above grounds are mutually exclusive to each other.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 23.10.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us & interalia contended that the “impugned order” is illegal, not proper and is bad in law. It thus deserves to be set aside. The Ld. AR has placed on record of this tribunal a compilation from pages 1 to 28. The Ld. AR contended that the relevant notice is dated 20.03.2020 & by that time Covid-19 had started hence the assessee cannot be blamed for non-compliance Printed from counselvise.com Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 212 & 213/Ind/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 & 2018-19 Page 6 of 8 in such as extraordinary situation which was in the nature of force majure. Per contra the Ld. DR contended that the period under reference which is being discussed pertains to covid-19 wherein it was not possible for any one during covid-19 period to comply with any notice(s) issued by the Income Tax Department & hence the sympathetic view can be taken and the penalty imposed can be deleted by this Tribunal. 4. Observations & findings & conclusions 4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the “impugned order” basis records of the case. 4.2 We have perused the records of the case and have heard the rival contentions. 4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & upon examining the contentions are of the considered view that period of compliance u/s 148 notice which was dated 20.03.2020 i.e. within 7 days from the date of receipt to file return of income falls within first phase of Covid-19 with nation-wise lockdown Printed from counselvise.com Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 212 & 213/Ind/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 & 2018-19 Page 7 of 8 declared on 25.03.2020. The period of show cause notice dated 07.02.2021 u/s 271(1)(b) too falls under Covid-19 period. 4.4 In view of the aforesaid we hold that all the notice(s) be it under 148, 142(1) (date 27.02.2021 as per CIT(A) order) as well as shown cause notice dated 08.02.2021 (supra) pertained to Covid-19 period & to expect compliance on part of the assessee by the department was not called for & for assessee to do due compliance was impossible. Therefore, under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand we set aside the “Impugned order” and delete the penalty. Order 5. In the result “Impugned Order” is set aside and penalty at Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) upheld in the impugned order is deleted. 6. Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of other one appeal i.e. ITANo.213/Ind/2025 are exactly identical to the Appeal in ITANo.212/Ind/2025 and similar contentions raised therein may be considered, therefore Printed from counselvise.com Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 212 & 213/Ind/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 & 2018-19 Page 8 of 8 our findings and directions given in ITANo.212/Ind/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal which is accordingly allowed . 5.2 In view of the aforesaid both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced by putting on notice board in terms of Rule 34 of ITAT, Rules, 1963, on 30.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. MANISH BORAD) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 30/10/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 0Indore Bench, Indore Printed from counselvise.com "