VANDANA ANIL BALADAHRE,GONDIA V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

ITA 1521/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vandana Anil Baladhare, the appellant, who faced penalties for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act during the assessment year 2013-2014. The penalties were imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), NFAC, Delhi, and upheld by the CIT(A). The appellant did not appear in the hearings, and the Tribunal proceeded with the Departmental Representative's arguments. The Tribunal considered the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected the appellant's ability to respond to the notices, and applied section 273B of the Act, which allows for penalties to be waived if there is a reasonable cause.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774894 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Cognizance for extension of limitation, (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHASHANK OJHA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Non compliance
• Section: 142(1); 273B

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \" बी \"न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"B\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं / ITA No.1521/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Vandana Anil Baladhare Near Ramdeo Colony, Fulchur, Gondia-441601 Maharashtra PAN-AQZPB8058L Vs ITO, Panvel Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Shashank Ojha- Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 17.04.2025 which is arising out of order dated 08.12.2021 levying penalty u/s u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act by ITO NFAC, Delhi. 2. When the case called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On the previous date of hearing fixed on 23.07.2025 assessee failed to appear. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and available records. 3. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. Ld. DR had relied on the finding of Ld. CIT(A). We note that during the course of assessment proceedings for Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1521/PUN/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 carried out in the case of the present assessee who is an individual, assessee failed to respond to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 14.07.2021, 20.07.2021 & 02.08.2021. For this non compliance Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) invoked section 271(1)(b) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.30,000/- @ Rs. 10,000/- for each non compliance. In the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A) assessee failed to succeed. 4. We observe that when the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on three occasions, the Country was facing the Covid-19 Pandemic and apart from restriction on movement various other problems were faced by the citizens of this Country. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Cognizance for extension of limitation, (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC) dated 10.01.2022” has extended the limitation period upto May, 2022. Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering the provisions of section 273B of the Act which provides that for the penalties referred in section 273B of the Act which includes the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, no penalty shall be imposable on the the assessee as if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. We find that the case of the present assessee falls under the provisions of section 273B of the Act as the assessee had reasonable cause for not responding to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. We are therefore of the considered view that no penalty should have been levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed and penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act at Rs. 30,000/- is deleted. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1521/PUN/2025 5. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 01st day of September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 01st September, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"बी\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"B\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "