PRITI BHANSALI,BHARUCH V. ITO, WARD 1 , BHARUCH

ITA 1023/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Priti Bhansali, the appellant, who was penalized by the Assessing Officer for non-compliance with notices under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellant argued that she had a reasonable cause for her non-compliance, as she was unaware of the notices due to her late activation of the e-filing portal, which was only done for Aadhaar linking at her bank's request. The Tribunal, referencing a similar case, agreed with the appellant and deleted the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831723 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Suresh Chhotelal Jaiswal Vs. ITO (Mum. ITAT)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1023/Srt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Priti Bhansali, D 1, Rajashree Nagar, Umalla, Bharuch-39310. [PAN : AGSPB2559 H] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharuch. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, AR Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”], whereby the penalty order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), levying a penalty of Rs.20,000/-, was confirmed. 3. The assessee is an individual and is not a regular filer of return of income, as she never had taxable income. Proceedings were initiated against her on the ground that her name appeared in the sale deed of an immovable property sold by her husband. However, it is an admitted fact that the property was solely owned by her husband, Shri Praveen Bhansali, who duly declared the entire long- term capital gains in his return of income. The name of the assessee was included in the property documents only for nominee purposes, as per the housing society rules. An ex-parte order under section 148A was passed on 01.04.2022, and consequential notices were uploaded on the income-tax portal. The assessee had Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1023/Srt/2025 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– not activated her e-filing portal account earlier and activated the same for the first time on 27.04.2024, only for the purpose of Aadhaar linking at the request of her bank. It was only thereafter that she became aware of the proceedings initiated by the Department. Although statutory notices, including notice under section 148, were issued, the same were not communicated to the assessee. Consequently, an ex-parte assessment order was passed. The appeal against the said order was filed with delay, which was condoned by the appellate authority, and the ex-parte assessment order was set aside, accepting the assessee’s explanation regarding non-communication of notices. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 272A(1)(d) for alleged non-compliance of notices, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), holding that the assessee failed to establish reasonable cause. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the imposition of penalty of Rs.20000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) and subsequently confirmed by the appellate authority, without allowing the excuse as provided u/s 273B. The Ld.Counsel further submitted and explained hereinabove in detail, in the summary of facts, the appellant was quite prevented by a reasonable cause for the noncompliance of the alleged notices. Therefore, as defined exceptions in section 273B, the benefits of such exceptions ought to have been allowed in the instant case. Since both the lower authorities have failed to do so, the orders passed by them are in violation of natural justice. The Ld.Counsel also placed reliance on the judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Suresh ChhotelalJaiswal Vs. ITO (Mum. ITAT) wherein under the given circumstances, penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) has been deleted. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, and considered the facts narrated above. It is evident that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 272A(1)(d) is not sustainable and deserves to be deleted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1023/Srt/2025 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied is deleted. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.01.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Surat; Dated 23.01.2026 **mv आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , /DR,ITAT, Surat, 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Surat 1. .2025……………. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …03.11.2025…………. 3. Other Member ……06.11.2025………. 4. Date on which the approved draft Printed from counselvise.com "