"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.541/CHANDI/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Punjab Zoos Development Society M. C. Zoological Park Chhatbir, Mohali-160055 बनाम/ Vs. ITO-Exemptions Ward Plot No 19, ISBT Road Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017 ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.AACAP-9643-H (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) (Virtual) -Ld. AR ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT)(Virtual) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 13-02-2025 confirming penalty of Rs.30,000/- as levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act vide order dated 06- 12-2021. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. Printed from counselvise.com 2 2. An assessment has been framed against the assessee u/s 143(3) on 13-12-2019 wherein various notices issued by Ld. AO u/s 142(1) on 24-09-2019, 15-11-2019 & 21-11-2019 were not responded to by the assessee. For non-compliances by the assessee, Ld. AO proposed impugned penalty on the assessee. The assessee assailed penalty on the ground that assessment order was subject matter of further appeal. However, on the issue of proposed penalty for non-compliance of notices, the assessee did not file any explanation. Accordingly, Ld AO levied impugned penalty of Rs.30,000/- for each of these defaults. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same for the same very reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The assessee, indeed, has defaulted in complying with identical notices as issued by Ld. AO u/s 142(1) on three different occasions. However, it could be seen that penalty has been levied for three identical defaults which are recurring in nature. The Ld. AO could have framed assessment immediately after serving initial notice only. Therefore, we restrict the impugned penalty to the extent of Rs.10,000/- only for first default. No other ground has been urged in the appeal. 4. The appeal stand partly allowed. Order pronounced on 23-09-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 23-09-2025. Printed from counselvise.com 3 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH Printed from counselvise.com "