RITU VERMA,THANE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , THANE

ITA 377/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ritu Verma against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Thane, for non-compliance with a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), but the Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, as her mother was undergoing medical treatment and subsequently passed away, which prevented her from responding to the notice in time.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314698 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 144; 142(1); 273B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 377/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Ritu Verma 1602 Tiara Chs Ltd., Ghodbunder Road, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (W), Mumbai 400607 [PAN:APSPV9392R] …………. Appellant Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Thane Thane – 400607. Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Abhimanyu Jamba Shri R.R. Makwana Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 11.03.2025 07.05.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 14/10/2024, passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 01/01/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. As per the registry there is a delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal. In the application seeking condonation of delay it has been explained that the delay in filing the appeal was caused since the counsel for the Assessee was required to attend to immediate ITA No.377/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 2 family on account of medical exigency. Therefore, we hold that the there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed time and therefore, delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the following grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. CIT (A)'] has grossly erred in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in not appreciating the Appellant had substantiated the reasons for non compliance to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income tax Act 1961”. 2. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the penalty of INR.10,000 was levied on the Assessee under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for failure to comply with the notice, dated 31/08/2021, issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted that mother of Assessee was not keeping well and therefore, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act could not be complied with. However, the CIT(A) declined to grant any relief observing that the Assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings and assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessee had placed on record death certificate of her mother in support of the contention that she was not keeping well at the relevant time and therefore, notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act could not be complied with. We note that notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 31/08/2021. As per the death certificate, the mother of the Assessee passed away on ITA No.377/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 3 31/03/2022. The accompanying medical reports show that she was undergoing medical treatment at the relevant point of time. Therefore, we hold that the Assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from complying with the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and the default committed by the Assessee was not deliberate. Accordingly, we delete the penalty of INR.10,000/- levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of notice, dated 31/08/2021, issued under Section 142(1) of the Act keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 273B of the Act. In terms of aforesaid, Ground No.1 and Ground No.2 raised by the Assessee are allowed. 4. In result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed. Order pronounced on 07.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Renu Jauhri) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated :07.05.2025 Milan, LDC ITA No.377/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 4 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai "