Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

In the present case, the assessee, Raj Kumar Asnani, did not file his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to a large cash deposit in the assessee's bank account. Further notices under section 142(1) were issued on 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022, which were served on the assessee's email address. The assessee did not respond to these notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment and a penalty notice under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The assessee appealed against the penalty, arguing that the notices were not served physically and that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, but the Tribunal allowed it, holding that the penalty was unsustainable.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act is justified?
• 2. Whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Mr. Dhananjay Mahadeo Sonsurkar v/s. Income Tax Officer/Assessment Unit, ITO/CIT(A)

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• SNG Microns Private Limited vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

  Patna bench

• M/s. Palliyakkal Service Co-op Bank Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Cochin bench

• Alisha Packaging Industries vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• Shamji Kanji Zaru vs DCIT

  "F" Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22Allowed

• Nitin Ramchandra Kalambe Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)

  Mumbai benchAY 2018-19Allowed