Case Law Details
B. U. Bhandari Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune)
ITAT find that on receipt of notice u/s 142(1) dated 05.09.2019, the appellant sought time for 15 days to file the required details and the requisite details were filed on 04.11.2019. From the material on record, it appears that when the appellant sought time to file the details, the said application was not disposed of by the Assessing Officer either rejecting the said application or granting time. We also find that ultimately the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income. Thus, it will conclusively prove that no prejudice was caused to the Assessing Officer on account of non-complying with the notice u/s 142(1) issued on 05.09.2019 and inaction of the Assessing Officer on the adjournment petition moved by the assessee would also enable the appellant to believe that the time to comply with the extension of time as prayed was granted. Therefore, in the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the appellant is guilty of contumacious conduct to comply with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Thus, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal stands allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
These are the appeals filed by the different assessees directed against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-12, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 29.04.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18 respectively confirming the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned four appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
