JIHAS ABDULJALEEL,KOLLAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2, KOLLAM

ITA 523/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jihas Abduljaleel, an individual engaged in the livestock business, who did not file a regular return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Consequently, the AO issued notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the appellant failed to comply with. The AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act and subsequently levied a penalty for non-compliance with the hearing notices. The appellant, citing his uneducated status and medical issues, appealed against the penalty, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, considering the appellant's circumstances and reliance on a previous case, decided in favor of the appellant, removing the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716979 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Rekha Rani v. DCIT, ITA No. 6131/Del/2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETHU S.
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAKUNTH SELVARAJ
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA No. 523/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jihas Abduljaleel .......... Appellant Shihas Manzil, Kannamkode, Kummil Post, Kollam [PAN: BLYPA6333C] vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Shakunth Selvaraj, CA Revenue by: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 23.05.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that that appellant is an individual, engaged in the business of livestock. No regular return of income for AY 2016-17 was filed by the appellant. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), which remained uncomplied with by the appellant. Subsequently, Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 523/Coch/2025 Jihas Abduljaleel the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called \"the AO\") completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act for non- compliance of hearing notices. In response to the show cause notice the appellant had not even filed any explanation. In the circumstances, the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 40,000/- vide order dated 16.08.2024 passed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted that the notice issued by the AO went unnoticed by the appellant as he is an uneducated person and does not maintain email ID. It is further submitted that as per the SOP dated 03.08.2022, AO should have sent the notice through physical mode to the latest known address through speed post and also should have sent SMS, which the AO had failed to do. It is further submitted that the appellant was suffering from spine and neck injury and was undergoing treatment during the period. In support of this the appellant also filed a medical certificate which is enclosed at page Nos. 37 to 39 of the paper book. Also reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rekha Rani v. DCIT, ITA No. 6131/Del/2013 dated 06.05.2015. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 523/Coch/2025 Jihas Abduljaleel 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The AO had levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act for the failure of the assessee to respond to the notices issued u/s. 142(1), u/s. 143(2) and u/s. 144 of the Act. We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons for non-compliance of the notices in view of the submissions made by the appellant. Therefore, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 40,000/- levied u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 19th August, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "