Ganpat Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Indore)
Five Notices, One Query: ITAT Restricts 271(1)(b) Penalty to ₹10,000- When Multiple 142(1) Notices Seek Same Info—Only One Default Survives
Assessee, an agriculturist, filed appeal belatedly against penalty of ₹50,000 levied u/s 271(1)(b) for alleged non-compliance with five consecutive notices issued u/s 142(1). Delay was supported by affidavit stating prolonged illness & financial hardship. Tribunal noted the Assessee’s ailing condition & absence of mala fide, & applying the Supreme Court ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, condoned the delay to advance substantial justice.
On merits, the Assessee argued that all five notices sought the same information regarding a land-sale transaction, & therefore non-compliance constituted a single default. Tribunal accepted this plea, relying on settled law including ITAT Pune’s 14.10.2025 decision in Devraj Vishwasrao Jadhav v. ITO. It held that repeated notices on the same query do not multiply defaults. Applying section 273B, Tribunal restricted penalty to ₹10,000 for the first non-compliance & deleted the remaining ₹40,000. Appeal was partly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT INDORE
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 21.03.2022 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 14.06.2018 passed by ITO-3(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], the assessee has filed this appeal.
