Case Law Details

Case Name : Shri Chouth Mal Sharma Vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Appeal Number : ITA.No. 311/JP/2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/07/2018
Related Assessment Year : 2009-10

Shri Chouth Mal Sharma Vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

In the case the appellant, sold agricultural land at village Nindar, Tehsil Amer. The AO issued notice under section 148 on 31st May, 2013 on the basis of information received from Sub Registrar about the sale of agricultural land. The notice issued under section 148 was served through affixture. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) was issued on 30th April, 2014. Since there was no response and compliance on behalf of the assessee to the notices issued by the AO, accordingly the AO framed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144 of the IT Act on 23rd January, 2015 and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) by issuing a notice on 15.07.2015. The AO levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each for failure on notices issued under section 148 and 142(1) of the Act total amounting to Rs. 20,000/- vide order dated 31st July, 2015.

The appellant contented that penalty under section 271(1)(b) can be imposed by the AO if he is satisfied that any person failed to comply with the notice under section 142(1) or under section 143(2) or directions issued under section 142(2A) of the Act. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notice issued under section 148.

The Hon’ble ITAT has held as under:-

“Thus it is clear that the AO has levied the penalty @ Rs. 10,000/- each for non compliance of notices under section 148/142(1) of the Act. As it is clear from the provisions of section 271(1)(b) that this provision can be invoked only for non compliance of notice under section 115WD(2) or section 115WE(2) or section 142(1) or 143(2) or directions issued under section 142(2A) of the Act, therefore, other than the default committed by the assessee specified in the clause (b) of section 271(1) the non compliance to the other notices or directions would not attract the penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notice under section 148 is not valid and the same is deleted.”

Download Judgment/Order

Author Bio

More Under Income Tax

2 Comments

  1. Ravi Krishnamurthy says:

    Till now govt has not clear on skill development , knowledge intiatives, innovation of skill for industry.
    We have written to start up and skill development for industry.
    I think commissoners are also not clear in exemptions clauses thus they not only haress us also industry who pay for knowledge is confused

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

June 2021
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930