RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

ITA 690/JPR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Raj Kumar Asnani, who was penalized by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to the assessment year 2017-18. The ITO issued a penalty of Rs. 20,000 for each default of non-compliance with the notices dated 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022. The assessee appealed against the penalty, arguing that the notices were not served physically and that there was no malafide intention for non-compliance. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which found in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35436 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Hindustan Steels v/s State of Orisa, Woodward Governor India Pvt Ltd Vs CIT and Ors, Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONISHA CHOUDHARY V.C
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA; GIVING FOLLOWING; ONE OR ANOTHER REASONS
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Bonafide belief; Competent authority; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 139(1); 131; 274; 273B; 271B; 272A

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Raj Kumar Asnani] G-6, Jayanti market, M. I. Road, Jaipur. cuke Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABHPA3918M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)(V.C.) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 10/07/2024 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 04/10/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by assessee is arising out of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 07.11.2023 [hereinafter “Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC”] for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- \"1. The impugned penalty order u/s 272A (1)(d) dated 26-09-2022 as well as notices are bad in law and on facts of the case, being barred by limitation, for 2 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same may kindlybe quashed. 2. Rs.20,000/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed by the Id. AO u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, also erred in not considering the request and material available on record. Hence the penalty so imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 3. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that in present case no return of income was filed by the assessee for the year under consideration u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act. As per information available with the Ld. AO, the assessee had deposited cash for Rs. 1,09,58,000/- in his account number 00081801000688 in Fingrowth Corporate Bank Ltd. in the name of M/s Asnani Home Appliances during the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18. In absence of ITR, source of cash deposits was not verifiable. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 27.03.2021 after taking necessary approval from the competent authority. In response to above notice, no ITR was filed by the assessee. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act were issued on 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022. In response to these notices, no reply filed by the assessee. Assessment was completed u/s 144 of the I.T. Act at assessed income of Rs. 8,76,640/- on 27.03.2022 and penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s 272A(1)(d) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued 27.03.2022 for non-compliance of 3 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO notices u/s 142(1) dated 18.11.2021 & 14.02.2022. In response to above notice the assessee had not furnished any reply. Thereafter the case was transferred to ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur on 01.08.2022 by NFAC. Accordingly, a fresh opportunity was given to the assessee dated 29.08.2022 again the assessee has not furnished any reply in response to above notice. In view of these facts, provisions of Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act are attracted in the case of the assessee. Since, the assessee failed to comply with the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022. The Ld. AO is of the considered opinion that case of the assessee is fit for imposition of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act for the above mentioned defaults of non-compliance. Further, non responsiveness of the assessee established that the assessee was not having any reasonable cause for failure to comply with the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act was levied in the case for the failure of compliance to notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act on 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022 @ Rs. 10,000/- for each default. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of levy of penalty the assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings:- 4 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO “5. Appellate findings and decision: 5.1 I have perused the form no.35, grounds of appeal, the impugned penalty order, the written submissions and the facts of the case. The Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty on the basis of the absence of any plausible reason from the appellant regarding omission of compliance of statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) on 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022. The appellant in its submissions has contended that the failure was because of the notices not being served physically on him. Besides this the appellant has not furnished any otherdocument in support of its contention. 5.3 The provision of section u/s 272A(1) are reproduced as under: Penalty for failure to answer questions, sign statements, furnish information, returns or statements, allow inspections, etc. 272A. (1) If any person, - (a) being legally bound to state the truth of any matter touching the subject of his assessment, refuses to answer any question put to him by an income-tax authority in the exercise of its powers under this Act, or (b) refuses to sign any statement made by him in the course of any proceedings under this Act, which an income-tax authority may legally require him to sign; or (c) to whom a summons is issued under sub-section (1) of section 131 either to attend to give evidence or produce books of account or other documents at a certain place and time omits to attend or produce books of account or documents at the place or time; or (d) fails to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub- section(2) of section 143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub- section (2A) of section 142, 5 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO he shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such default or failure. 5.4 It is noted that the appellant has been negligent in the re-assessmentproceedings u/s 147 and penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d). It is the duty of the tax payer to update the correct details for communication with the department. Hence it cannot take this plea that the notices sent on email were not communicated to the appellant because of some vague reasons, it is not liable to be penalized u/s 272A(1)(d). 5.5 The appellant has relied upon various judicial pronouncements which are not applicable in the case of the appellant as the appellant has not being able to ENT establish reasonable cause for its omission to comply to the notices dated 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022. 5.6 In view of the above, the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) is upheld and the grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A). The present appeal filed against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A) before us on the grounds as reiterated here in above. To support the grounds so raised the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the written submission which is extracted herein below:- “FACTS: 1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee is a a regular I.T assessee from last so many years. The appellant assessee is engaged in the business of home appliances trading in all kinds of home appliances viz. TVs, Refrigerators, Mixis, Telephone, Fan & Coolers etc in the name of M/s Asnani Home Appliances. The assessee has not filed his return of income for this year due to negligence’s of accountants or counsels. The ld. AO has issued the notices u/s 148 in this case on dt. 27.03.2021 on the reasons that “ As per the information available in AIMS, the assessee has deposited cash for Rs. 1,09,58,000/- in his account number 00081801000688 in Fingrowth Corporate Bank Ltd. In the name of M/s Asnani Home 6 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO Appliances during the financial year 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18. The assessee has not filed return of income for the AY 2017-18. Therefore considering that the cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 1,09,58,000/- has escaped assessment, The ld. AO has noted that the notice u/s 142(1) was issued on dt. 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022 respectively, which was served upon the registered email address. The ld. AO stated that the assessee has not furnished the information. The ld. AO has also issued the show cause notice u/s 144 on dt. 11.03.2022 delivered on email on dt. 12.03.2022 fixing the date of hearing on dt. 14.03.2022, but in want of information with the assessee could not file the reply. Hence the ld. AO has proceeded the exparty assessment. While passing the order the ld. AO has commutated or worked out income Rs. 8,76,640/- and accordingly the assessment was completed u/s. 144 rws 147 of Income tax Act, 1961, against which the assessee has filed the appeal which is under hearing before the CIT(A) NFAC we already filled our WS and details in that case. After passing the order the ld. AO has issued the notice u/s 272A(1)(d)on dt. 27.03.2022 on the date of assessment order for the non compliances to the notice u/s 142(1) dt. 18.11.2021and 14.02.2022. As this notice has also not been served upon the assessee physically. Thereafter the ld. AO has again issued the notice on dt. 29.08.2022. As this notice has also not been served upon the assessee. Thus the ld. AO has penalty of Rs.20,000/- is imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) for failure to furnish or comply with the notice u/s 142(1) dt. 18.11.2021 ,and 14.02.2022. And imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/-. In first appeal assessee has filed the WS, details and legal position of law. However the ld. CIT(A) did not feel satisfy with the reply and conformed the penalty by stating that “The appellant has been negligent in the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 and penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d). It is the duty of the tax payer to update the correct details for communication with the department. Hence it cannot take this plea that the notices sent on email were not communicated to the appellant because of some vague reasons, it is not liable to be penalized u/s 272A(1)(d). The appellant has relied upon various judicial pronouncements which are not applicable in the case of the appellant as the appellant has not being able to establish reasonable cause for its omission to comply to the notices dated 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022.” Hence this appeal. SUBMISSIONS: 1. No notices has been served upon the assessee :At the very outset it is submitted that admittedly the assesseeis doing business and a regular IT assessee and filling his return of income regularly from last many years, however for this year the return could not be furnished 7 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO by the negligence’s of counsel and accountant. As both the notices have been at the email address of the counsel and the assessee was under impression that the counsel is taking care the IT matter. The notices sent on the email could not be communicated to the assesseee by one and other reasons. As the assessee was not sing those email and otherwise if had received he could have responded the same. As the notices have not been served physically. 1.2 He had also no knowledge of any proceedings initiated against him, notices issued and order passed for the assessment year 2017-18. And also there was no mensrea/malafide intention for non compliance of assessing officer notices. The assessee has come to know only when he had received the penalty orders. 1.3. Further it is also admitted facts that the there was Covid-19 period till March 2022 and the Honble Supreme Court had extend the due date of many proceeding or filling the appeal and other matters. Thus there was also exist a reasons cause. During the Covid-19 period the Govt. and Courts was also having liberal view. And it is also reason that when the Honble Supreme Court had extend the time limits in various matters, then also no penalty should be imposed for non compliance of notices in those periods. 1.3 Due to all these reason the assessee could not make compliance of notice and the ld. AO nowhere provided any documentary proof that the notices were served on him physically. Therefore we had requested to the ld.CIT(A) that “the ld. AO may kindly be asked to produce the documentary evidences of service of all the notices upon the assessee physically”. Hence no penalty can be imposed. 1.4 Thus no penalty should be imposed on a poor innocent assessee, when there was no fault and guilty mind has been established. The default if any was the counsel who could not communicated properly about the notices to the assessee. Thus there was no melafide intention of the assessee nor counsel for not to comply the notices, when it is an admitted facts that the assessee is a regular IT assessee from last so many years and till regularly filling his ITR . Further when the assessee has come to no he himself engaged the counsel and making the compliance the notices and filling the return regularly. 2. Technical breach only: Alternatively and without prejudice to our other submission, even assuming some default was there, the same at the best was a merely technical and venial breach of law and the conduct of the assessee has not been shown to be contumacious. No deliberate defiance of law is established. It has been held that by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels v/s State of Orisa 83 ITR 26 (SC).\"That in order to impose penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of quasi criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed, unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The Supreme Court has further laid down that penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority and is to be exercised judiciously and on a consideration 8 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed the authority competent to impose the penalty, will be justified in refusing to impose penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.\" The assessee in any case entertained a bonafide belief that no proceedings against him as we have already stated in above paras 1. Hence due to bonafide belief if any the assessee should not be suffer. This way a reasonable cause did exist u/s 273B and hence also the penalty imposed may kindly be quashed. Thus due to the negligence of the consultants/counsel if any a poor assessee should not be suffered. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered and rebutted our these contention or plea rather in very summarily manner has rejected the same and only stated that the reason given by the appellant is vague and there is no reasonable cause. The ld. CIT(A) has failed to state how there was no reasonable cause when the assessee explained the same in detailed. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty in a very causal manner, which is clearly appearing from the order of the ld. CIT(A). 4. \"Section 272A FAILURE TO FURNISH RETURNS, COMPLY WITH NOTICES, CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, ETC. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person - (a) (Omitted) (b) Has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142; or (i) (Omitted) (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees for each such failure; Section 273B in The Income- Tax Act, 1995 \"273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B , section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB,section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub- section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or 9 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.\" From a perusal of the above provisions, we can understand that, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 271, no penalty shall be imposed on the person or the assessee as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provision, if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. So it can be understood that penalty cannot be imposed, if the assessee is able to prove that there was reasonable cause for the said failure of not complying with the notice served on them under sub- section (1) of section 142 of the Act. The meaning of reasonable cause has been stated in the case of woodward Governor India Pvt Ltd Vs CIT and Ors (2002) 253 ITR 745 (Delhi).para 5 & 6, is reproduced below:- \"What would constitute reasonable cause cannot be laid down with precision. It would depend upon factual background and the scope for extremely limited and unless the conclusions are perverse based on conjectures or surmises and/ or have been arrived at without consideration of relevant material and/or have been arrived at without consideration of no scope for interference. Reasonable cause, as applied to human action is that which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence. The expression \"reasonable\" is not susceptible of a clear and precise definition; for an attempt to give a specific meaning to the word not space. It can be described as rational according to the dictates of reason and is not excessive or immoderate. The word \"reasonable\" has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable with regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought o know (see In re, A Solicitor (1945) KB 368 (CA).Reasonable cause can be reasonably said to be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence and ordinary produce, acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bona fides. In the case of Azadi BachaoAndolan v. Union of India 252 ITR 471 (Delhi), Delhi, the Hon'ble High Court held that is (reproduced below):- \"Section 273B starts with a non obstante clause and provides that notwithstanding anything contained in several provisions enumerated therein including section 271C, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure A clause beginning with \"notwithstanding anything\" is sometimes appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the provision of Act mentioned in the non obstante clause (see Orient Paper and Industries Ltd v State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 672) A non obstante clause may be used as a legislative device, to modify the ambit of the provision of law mentioned in the non obstante clause, or to override it 10 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO in specified circumstances (see T R Thandur v Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1643) The true effect of the non obstante clause is that in spite of the provision or Act mentioned in the non obstante clause, the enactment following it will have its full operation or that the provisions embraced in the non obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment (see SmtParayankandiyalEravathKanapravanKalliani Amma v K Devi, AIR 1996 SC 1963) Therefore, in order to bring in application of section 271C in the backdrop of section 273B, absence of reasonable cause, existence of which has to be established by the assessee, is the sine qua non Levy of penalty under section 271C is not automatic Before levying penalty, the concerned officer is required to find out that even if there was any failure referred to in the concerned provision the same was without a reasonable cause. The initial burden is on the assessee to show that there existed reasonable cause which wag the reason for the failure referred to in the concerned provision Thereafter the officer dealing with the matter has to consider whether the explanation offered by the assessee or the person, as the case may be, as regards the reason for failure, was on account of reasonable cause 'Reasonable cause\" as applied to human action is that which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence It can be described as probable cause It means an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinarily prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the person concerned, to come to the conclusion that the same was the right thing to do The cause shown has to be considered and only if it is found to be frivolous, without substance or foundation, the prescribed consequences follow. The above being the position, the Commissioner's non-consideration of the plea raised by the assessee about the existence of reasonable cause vitiated the order On that score, we find the order passed by the Commissioner to be non- maintainable.\" From a perusal of the records it reveals that no notice u/s 142(1) was served, failure of the assessee to comply with such notices cannot be said to be a default which may justify the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) also nowhere stated that these notices has been served upon the assessee. 5. Appeal of Quantum is pending: Further it is submitted that the appeal against the assessment order was pending, where we had taken the ground of non services of notice and the fate of quantum order may had direct impact on the present penalty order. 6.Therefore in view of the above submissions the penalty so initiated impose may kindly be deleted in full and oblige.” 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee has filed detailed written submission which is part 11 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO of his order but never applied his mind just upheld the orders of Ld. AO and before the AO is ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee advanced his arguments on legal grounds and filed a detailed written submission . 7. Per contra, Ld. DR objected to the prayer of the assessee and submitted that the assessee did not represent case before the ld. AO and now he is praying for equity and justice. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record.We note from the assessment order, Penalty order and CIT(A), that the appellant-assessee is a regular I.T assessee and is engaged in the business of home appliances trading in all kinds of home appliances viz. TVs, Refrigerators, Mixis, Telephone, Fan & Coolers etc in the name of M/s Asnani Home Appliances and further we note from the submission of the AR for the assessee that assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration as stated by the assessee for the reasons due to negligence’s of accountants or counsels. We note that the Ld AO had issued the notices u/s 148 on 27.03.2021 for cash deposited of Rs. 1,09,58,000/- in his account number 00081801000688 in Fingrowth Corporate Bank Ltd, which in the name of M/s Asnani Home Appliances during the financial year 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18. 12 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO 9. Further we note that the Ld. AO has issued notice u/s 142(1) on 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022 respectively, which was served upon the registered email address and the AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has not furnished the any reply for the above notices. Again the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice u/s 144 on 11.03.2022 by email on 12.03.2022 fixing the date of hearing on 14.03.2022, but the assessee could not file the reply. Finally the AO has passed the ex-parte assessment u/s. 144 rws 147 of Income tax Act, 1961and worked out the income of assessee as Rs. 8,76,640/-. 10. Further from the submission made by the Ld AR for the assessee and perused the records, it is observed we note that after passing the assessment order, the Ld. AO has also issued notice u/s 272A(1)(d)on 27.03.2022 and 29.08.2022 for the non compliances to the notices u/s 142(1) 18.11.2021and 14.02.2022. We note from the records available that these notice has also not been served upon the assessee physically, For which the Ld AO has levied penalty of Rs.20,000/- imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) for failure to furnish or comply with the notice u/s 142(1) 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022. Further from the submission made by the AR for the assessee we note that as both the notices have been at the email address of the counsel and the assessee was under impression that the counsel is taking care the IT matter and was not brought to the knowledge of the assessee. The notices sent on the email could not be communicated to the assessee by one or another reasons. 13 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO From the submission by the Ld AR for the assessee we note that there was Covid- 19 period till March 2022 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended the due date of many proceeding or filling the appeal and other matters. During the Covid- 19 period the Government and Courts was also having liberal view. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had extend the time limits in various matters, then also no penalty should be imposed for non compliance of notices in those periods and Appeal of Quantum is pending. 11. We note that Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee for non-compliance of the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act merely for the reason that during penalty proceedings under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, the assessee has not stated the reasonable cause. We are not in agreement with the findings of CIT(A). The assessee has explained that about ongoing assessment proceedings the assessee came to know only on receipt of order u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The explanation furnished by the assessee before the CIT(A) and before the Tribunal is consistent. We are satisfied that non appearance of the assessee in response to the initial notice under section 142(1) of the Act was not deliberate. The assessee has been able to show reasonable cause for the failure to comply with statutory notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act stating that both notices were served on the e-mail of counsel. Thus, in our view penalty levied u/s. 14 ITA No. 690/JPR/2023 Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO 272A(1)(d) of the Act is unsustainable. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/10/2024. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 04/10/2024 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Raj Kumar Asnani, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2(2),Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 690/JPR/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "