MURUGAIYAPILLAI RAMDAS,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

ITA 2617/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Murugaiyapillai Ramdas, an individual aged 71, who did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19, claiming he had no taxable income. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessment and issued notices under sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were not responded to by the assessee. Consequently, a penalty was imposed for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1). The Tribunal noted that the notices were sent to the assessee's auditor and not directly to the assessee, leading to the decision to delete the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107477 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: KATHIR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2617/Chny/2024 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Murugaiyapillai Ramdas, No.11, Ezhil Avnue, Sakthinagar Extn., Madipakkam, Chennai-600 034. v. The ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-19(6), Chennai. [PAN: CXRPR 3553 D] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. Kathir, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 25.09.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2018-19. ITA No.2617/Chny/2024 (AY 2018-19) Murugaiyapillai Ramdas :: 2 :: 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) upholding the penalty of Rs.20,000/- levied by the AO u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act”) 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and is about ‘71’ years old and since, according to the assessee, he hadn’t any taxable income, he didn’t file return of income (RoI) for AY 2018-19. However, the JAO re-opened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022, after issuing Show cause notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act and after passing order u/s.148A(d) of the Act. Thereafter, it is noted that the assessment got migrated to Faceless Assessment and later the assessment was framed u/s.144 (ex parte qua assessee). 4. Thereafter, the Faceless Assessing Officer [FAO] taking note that notices issued by him during the assessment proceedings didn’t evoke any response from the assessee, he initiated penalty proceedings u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act. According to assessee, he wasn’t in the dark about the notices. According to the assessee, from enquiry he came to know that the notices were e-mailed to the Auditor’s e-mail ID [e-mail] and not to the assessee’s e-mail ID. Since the Auditor omitted to reply to the notices of the AO, the AO initiated ITA No.2617/Chny/2024 (AY 2018-19) Murugaiyapillai Ramdas :: 3 :: penalty proceedings against the assessee u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act and alleged failure on his part to reply to notices u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 & 04.11.2022 and then, the AO levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- for each fault viz., total Rs.20,000/-. 5. Further, it was brought to our notice that penalty notices u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act were issued to the correct e-mail ID of the assessee’s son, [e-mail] which was received by the assessee and therefore, he fully participated in the penalty proceedings and still the AO levied the penalty. The main prayer of the assessee is that due to the fault of the Auditor, assessee shouldn’t be penalized. We note that the assessee is a Sr. Citizen, aged 71 years old and notices u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 & 04.11.2022 were issued to his Auditor as noted supra, and in this context, we take judicial notice of the fact that these were the nascent years when the department changed its assessment from the physical mode towards the on-line/faceless assessment and the notices were being served upon the assessee not by post but through online/e-mail ID. Taking note that assessee is Sr. Citizen of 71 years old and since, Faceless Assessment Scheme has been introduced recently and since, he was not aware about the notices sent by e-mail to his Auditor, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for non-responding to the ITA No.2617/Chny/2024 (AY 2018-19) Murugaiyapillai Ramdas :: 4 :: notices u/s.142(1) of the Act and therefore, considering the overall facts of the case, we are inclined to delete the penalty of Rs.20,000/-. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 04th day of April, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 04th April, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "