Vidya Raju Sanap vs. Ito Ward 32(2)(1), Mumbai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessment proceedings were initiated based on information relating to the purchase of an immovable property for a consideration of ₹1,20,00,000. The assessee allegedly failed to comply with the notice under section 143(2) dated 27.06.2023 and the notices under section 142(1) dated 19.10.2023 and 01.12.2023. The assessment was completed ex parte, resulting in an addition of ₹1,26,31,180 under section 69. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of ₹10,000 for each notice, aggregating to ₹30,000 under section 271(1)(b). The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without examining the explanation of the assessee on merits.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) is sustainable?
• 2. Whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the statutory notices?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Manoj Kumar Patodia Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata

• Basant Kumar Raut Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1)

  Delhi Bench ‘A’ benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• CRS Infrastructure Ltd vs ITO Ward-6(1)

  Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• SH. MUKESH SINGLA & SONS (HUF), VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 28(1)

  Delhi Bench ‘A’ benchAY 2014-15Partly Allowed

• The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society vs ITO, Ward 1, Hisar

  Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17, 2017-18Allowed

• Asst. CIT, Circle-45(1), New Delhi. Vs. Vibha Taneja

  Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi benchAY 2016-17Dismissed