YOGITA YASHWANT BAING,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), THANE

ITA 341/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Yogita Yashwant Baing against a penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 271B for non-compliance with two notices. The assessee argued that the notices were sent to an old address and not the updated one provided to the department, leading to non-receipt and thus non-compliance. The Revenue contended that the notices were sent to the assessee's email, which was not disputed. The Tribunal acknowledged the electronic service of notice but agreed with the assessee that imposing a penalty for each non-compliance of the same notice would be unjust, referencing a similar case where the penalty was restricted to the first default.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26578 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Smt. Rekha Rani V. DCIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 131(Delhi-Trib)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHANGEPATIL PUSHKARAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH S. ATHAVALE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 144; 143(2); 250; 271B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 341/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2016–17) Yogita Yashwant Baing 1303, 13th Floor, Metro Height Mhada Building, Link Road, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Ashar IT Park, Wagale Estate, Thane (West)-400610. PAN/GIR No. AQOPM9731E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Rajesh S. Athavale Revenue by Shri. Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (A.M): This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2015- 16/10402629 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- ITA no. 341/MUM/2025 Yogita Yashwant Baing 2 Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"Act\"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the AO has levied penalty u/s. 271B on account of non- compliance in respect of two notices issued by him on 04.12.2023 and 26.12.2023. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the “Taxpayer Annual Summary” document downloaded from the IT portal wherein the assessee has submitted the change of communication address on 29.04.2019. It was accordingly submitted that the notices were served on the earlier address and not on the new address which was also communicated to the AO and as a result, there was reasonable cause in terms of not responding to the notices so issued by the AO. Without prejudice, it was submitted that where the Bench so decide that there was a default on the part of the assessee in terms of responding to the notices, the penalty should be restricted to Rs. 10,000/- as it is the same notice which has been issued subsequently and therefore for the same default, the penalty could not be levied again and in support, reliance was place on Co-ordinate Delhi Benches decision in case of Smt. Rekha Rani V. DCIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 131(Delhi-Trib). 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that even though the assessee has changed her communication address but given that these days, all communication are sent electronically, the ITA no. 341/MUM/2025 Yogita Yashwant Baing 3 notices must have been sent to the assessee on her e-mail ID duly registered with the department which has not been disputed by the assessee and therefore the plea so taken by the Ld. AR that the notice was not served on the assessee cannot be accepted. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. The factum of service of notice on the assessee electronically on her email ID couldn’t be rebutted by the ld AR. At the same time, it is a settled legal proposition that for the same default, the penalty cannot be levied twice and reference can be drawn to the decision of the Coordinate Delhi Benches in case of Rekha Rani (supra) and the relevant findings therein read as under: “5. We have considered the submissions of learned DR and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), we find that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. However, we find that the default is same and, therefore, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- could be imposed for the first default made by the assessee in this regard. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed for each and every notice Issued under Section 143(2), which remained not complied with on the part of the assessee. The provision of Section 271(1)(b) is of deterrent nature and not for earning revenue. Any other view taken shall lead to the imposition of penalty for any number of times (without limits) for the same default of not appearing in response to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. This does not seem to be the intention of the legislature in enacting the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. In case of failure of the assessee to comply with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, the remedy with the Assessing Officer lies with framing of \"best judgement assessment\" under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act and not to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act again and again. In this view of the matter, we restrict the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is restricted to Rs. 10,000/- as against Rs. 50,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed” ITA no. 341/MUM/2025 Yogita Yashwant Baing 4 5. In light of aforesaid, we deem it appropriate to restrict the levy of penalty to Rs 10,000/- and the balance penalty is hereby deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 28.03.2025. Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 28/03/2025 Anandi Nambi, Steno Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// "