I asked the Assessing Officer for more time on a section 142(1) notice and then filed the reply within the time I had asked for. He has still levied Rs 10,000 under section 272A(1)(d). Is that sustainable?
No, on these facts. Where the assessee answered the notice by filing an adjournment request, and the Assessing Officer never rejected that request by a speaking order, the notice was attended to and there is no 'failure to comply' at all — the Tribunal deleted the Rs 10,000 penalty without needing to reach section 273B.
Decided by the ITAT (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Judicial Member and Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Accountant Member) on 2025-06-24, reported as ITA No. 137/JP/2025 (ITAT Jaipur); no law-report citation traced. It bears on section 272A(1)(d), section 142(1), section 143(2), section 142(2A), section 273B, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Penalty, Assessment & Scrutiny and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters.
This is the commonest shape of a section 272A(1)(d) case: one notice among many, an adjournment sought on the portal, a reply filed a few days later, and a Rs 10,000 penalty generated long afterwards. The order converts what is usually argued as a reasonable-cause plea under section 273B into a prior and stronger point — that the ingredient of the charge (a failure to comply) is missing. The limit is that it depends on there being a recorded response on the portal within or about the compliance window and on the absence of any order refusing the adjournment; where the assessee simply did not respond at all, this reasoning does not help, and the Chennai Bench sustained the penalty on that footing in Balakumar Anusia. Note also that the Assessing Officer here levied one penalty for one notice; where several notices go unanswered the Revenue levies Rs 10,000 for each, and the section's own words ('for each such default or failure') support that.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
For assessment year 2019-20 the assessee, who was residing in Jersey in the United States of America, was subjected to reassessment: notice under section 148A on 09-02-2023, notice under section 148 on 29-03-2023, and thereafter a series of notices. A notice under section 142(1) dated 11-10-2023 was issued through the ITBA portal calling for information about the purchase of time deposits and payments made to non-residents, with a compliance date of 23-10-2023. On 05-11-2023 the assessee filed a request for adjournment reading 'Due to illness in my family, I am away from home, and I do not have access to all the documents required in the response. Kindly grant me extension till November 15th 2023 to submit the response with required documents.' He filed the reply on 13-11-2023, that is before the date he had asked for. Further notices under section 142(1), section 147 and section 144C followed and were complied with. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs 10,000 by order dated 13-11-2024 under section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with the notice of 11-10-2023. The CIT(A), Delhi-42 confirmed it by order dated 24-01-2025, holding that the reply was generic and that the assessee had deliberately avoided compliance.
The appeal of the assessee was allowed and the penalty of Rs 10,000 was directed to be deleted. Where the assessee replied to the section 142(1) notice by seeking time, and there is no evidence that the request for time was refused by a speaking order, the notice was attended to and there cannot be a non-compliance within section 272A(1)(d) (Tribunal's own paragraph 8).
The Tribunal framed the question as whether the filing of an adjournment application can be treated as non-compliance with the notice of 11-10-2023, identified by acknowledgement no. 503262641051123. It recorded that the Departmental Representative did not controvert that a compliance had been made, but contended only that the adjournment application was general in nature. It then set out section 272A(1) clauses (a) to (d) in full. On that text it held that the assessee had replied to the notice by seeking time; that there was no evidence the request had been denied by a speaking order; and that a notice attended to by filing a reply cannot be a non-compliance. It added that the CIT(A) had merely confirmed the penalty on the footing that details were not filed and that compliance was deliberately avoided, without discussing the fact that the assessee's request for time was never considered either by the Assessing Officer or by him.
We do not find any evidence that the said request was denied by passing a speaking order. Thus, when the impugned notice was attended by the assessee by filling the reply it cannot be a non-compliance.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo, on these facts. Where the assessee answered the notice by filing an adjournment request, and the Assessing Officer never rejected that request by a speaking order, the notice was attended to and there is no 'failure to comply' at all — the Tribunal deleted the Rs 10,000 penalty without needing to reach section 273B. This was decided by the ITAT (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Judicial Member and Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Accountant Member) and bears on section 272A(1)(d), section 142(1), section 143(2), section 142(2A), section 273B, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 137/JP/2025 (ITAT Jaipur); no law-report citation traced. This is the commonest shape of a section 272A(1)(d) case: one notice among many, an adjournment sought on the portal, a reply filed a few days later, and a Rs 10,000 penalty generated long afterwards. The order converts what is usually argued as a reasonable-cause plea under section 273B into a prior and stronger point — that the ingredient of the charge (a failure to comply) is missing. The limit is that it depends on there being a recorded response on the portal within or about the compliance window and on the absence of any order refusing the adjournment; where the assessee simply did not respond at all, this reasoning does not help, and the Chennai Bench sustained the penalty on that footing in Balakumar Anusia. Note also that the Assessing Officer here levied one penalty for one notice; where several notices go unanswered the Revenue levies Rs 10,000 for each, and the section's own words ('for each such default or failure') support that. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Pull the ITBA/e-proceedings acknowledgement number for every response you filed, including adjournment requests, and put the acknowledgement numbers themselves on record — the Tribunal relied on acknowledgement no. 503262641051123 as proof that the notice had been attended to.
For assessment year 2019-20 the assessee, who was residing in Jersey in the United States of America, was subjected to reassessment: notice under section 148A on 09-02-2023, notice under section 148 on 29-03-2023, and thereafter a series of notices. A notice under section 142(1) dated 11-10-2023 was issued through the ITBA portal calling for information about the purchase of time deposits and payments made to non-residents, with a compliance date of 23-10-2023. On 05-11-2023 the assessee filed a request for adjournment reading 'Due to illness in my family, I am away from home, and I do not have access to all the documents required in the response. Kindly grant me extension till November 15th 2023 to submit the response with required documents.' He filed the reply on 13-11-2023, that is before the date he had asked for. Further notices under section 142(1), section 147 and section 144C followed and were complied with. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs 10,000 by order dated 13-11-2024 under section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with the notice of 11-10-2023. The CIT(A), Delhi-42 confirmed it by order dated 24-01-2025, holding that the reply was generic and that the assessee had deliberately avoided compliance. The matter was decided on 2025-06-24 by the ITAT (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Judicial Member and Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Accountant Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal of the assessee was allowed and the penalty of Rs 10,000 was directed to be deleted. Where the assessee replied to the section 142(1) notice by seeking time, and there is no evidence that the request for time was refused by a speaking order, the notice was attended to and there cannot be a non-compliance within section 272A(1)(d) (Tribunal's own paragraph 8).
The Tribunal framed the question as whether the filing of an adjournment application can be treated as non-compliance with the notice of 11-10-2023, identified by acknowledgement no. 503262641051123. It recorded that the Departmental Representative did not controvert that a compliance had been made, but contended only that the adjournment application was general in nature. It then set out section 272A(1) clauses (a) to (d) in full. On that text it held that the assessee had replied to the notice by seeking time; that there was no evidence the request had been denied by a speaking order; and that a notice attended to by filing a reply cannot be a non-compliance. It added that the CIT(A) had merely confirmed the penalty on the footing that details were not filed and that compliance was deliberately avoided, without discussing the fact that the assessee's request for time was never considered either by the Assessing Officer or by him. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "We do not find any evidence that the said request was denied by passing a speaking order. Thus, when the impugned notice was attended by the assessee by filling the reply it cannot be a non-compliance."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-06-24 and is reported as ITA No. 137/JP/2025 (ITAT Jaipur); no law-report citation traced. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 272A(1)(d), section 142(1), section 143(2), section 142(2A), section 273B, section 250, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal of the assessee was allowed and the penalty of Rs 10,000 was directed to be deleted. Where the assessee replied to the section 142(1) notice by seeking time, and there is no evidence that the request for time was refused by a speaking order, the notice was attended to and there cannot be a non-compliance within section 272A(1)(d) (Tribunal's own paragraph 8). It arises in Penalty, Assessment & Scrutiny and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters, on section 272A(1)(d), section 142(1), section 143(2), section 142(2A), section 273B, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Judicial Member and Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Accountant Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Build a table of every notice issued, the compliance date given, and the date of your response, in the form the assessee's representative filed here; it is what shows a single delayed reply against a run of timely ones. Ask specifically whether the Assessing Officer ever passed a speaking order rejecting the adjournment. If he did not, argue first that there was no failure to comply, and only then, in the alternative, reasonable cause under section 273B. If the CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty without dealing with the adjournment request, say so expressly in your grounds — the Tribunal's second reason was that the CIT(A) never discussed that the request had gone unconsidered.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed. No later treatment of this order was searched for or found, and it is not known whether the Revenue has appealed. The reasoning is consistent with the Allahabad Bench in Hanuman Prasad & Sons (13 September 2022), but the Chennai Bench reached the opposite result on different facts in Balakumar Anusia (26 August 2025), where the assessee made no response at all — so the two lines are on different facts rather than in conflict. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
One rendering of the header printed the bench as 'JAIPUR BENCHES,"SMC" JAIPUR' while naming two Members; a second rendering printed 'Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Benches' without the SMC label. Two Members are named and both signed, so the SMC label, if it is in the original, does not match the constitution of the Bench. The order reproduces the CIT(A)'s findings with their own paragraph numbering 5 to 11 before the Tribunal's own paragraph 5 resumes, so a citation to 'paragraph 9' of this document would be a citation to the CIT(A), not to the Tribunal; the Tribunal's own numbering runs 1 to 8. Within the reproduced CIT(A) order there are two internal errors of the CIT(A)'s own making — a reference to 'penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is leviable' in a section 272A(1)(d) order, and 'section 2738' for section 273B. Two paragraphs are both numbered 7 in the reproduced CIT(A) extract. The Tribunal's paragraph 8 reproduces section 272A(1) clauses (a) to (d) as they now stand. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal of the assessee was allowed and the penalty of Rs 10,000 was directed to be deleted. Where the assessee replied to the section 142(1) notice by seeking time, and there is no evidence that the request for time was refused by a speaking order, the notice was attended to and there cannot be a non-compliance within section 272A(1)(d) (Tribunal's own paragraph 8).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Is a notice under s.143(2) a jurisdictional precondition, or merely a procedural step the Assessing Officer can skip?
You took a cash loan and now face penalty equal to the whole amount. Is there any relief?
How wide are the first appellate authority's powers when it disposes of an appeal?
No s.143(2) notice was issued at all. Does s.292BB save the assessment?