My client answered neither the section 143(2) notice nor the section 142(1) notice, and the Assessing Officer has levied Rs 20,000 — Rs 10,000 for each. Is there any answer to that on appeal?
On these facts, no. Where the assessee simply did not respond to either notice, the Chennai Bench held that the Assessing Officer had rightly levied Rs 10,000 for each default under section 272A(1)(d) and dismissed the appeal — the section's own charging words are 'a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such default or failure'.
Decided by the ITAT (Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member and Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member) on 2025-08-26, reported as I.T.A. No. 1641/Chny/2025 (ITAT Chennai 'A' Bench); no law-report citation traced. It bears on section 272A(1)(d), section 142(1), section 143(2), section 147, section 148, section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Penalty, Assessment & Scrutiny, Reassessment & Reopening and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters.
This is the Revenue-side authority that the run of taxpayer-favourable section 272A(1)(d) orders conceals, and it is the one your opponent will cite. It settles two things against the assessee: that each unanswered notice is a separate failure carrying its own Rs 10,000, and that where nothing at all was filed in response there is no room for the 'the notice was attended to' argument that succeeded in Amit Jain. Note also how the appeal was lost: nobody appeared for the assessee before the Tribunal, no adjournment petition was filed, and no vakalatnama was on record, so the Bench decided the appeal on merits after hearing only the Departmental Representative. The order is also the cleanest verbatim reproduction of the current section 272A(1) — clauses (a) to (d) and the charging words — that this pass located.
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 2018-19 the Assessing Officer reopened the case under section 147 after following the section 148A procedure and issued a notice under section 148 on 16-04-2022, in response to which the assessee filed a return. A notice under section 143(2) was issued on 30-06-2023 calling for information; there was no response. A notice under section 142(1) was issued on 19-03-2024 requiring details by 23-03-2024; again there was no response. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 272A(1)(d), issued a penalty notice on 24-05-2024 and a show-cause letter on 26-08-2024 allowing a reply by 06-09-2024, and the assessee replied on 22-10-2024. The Assessing Officer levied Rs 20,000 — Rs 10,000 for each of the two defaults. The CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the penalty by order dated 29-05-2025. Before the Tribunal nobody appeared for the assessee, no adjournment petition was filed and no vakalatnama authorising any representative was on record, so the Bench proceeded to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the Departmental Representative.
The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The assessee not having complied with the notice under section 143(2) dated 30-06-2023 or the notice under section 142(1) dated 19-03-2024, the Assessing Officer had rightly levied penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of Rs 20,000, and the confirmation of that penalty by the CIT(A) was justified (paragraph 6).
The Tribunal reproduced section 272A(1) in full, including clause (d) and the closing charging words that the person 'shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such default or failure' (paragraph 5). It then recorded the two notices and the two non-compliances, held that the levy of Rs 20,000 followed 'in view of the provisions of section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, as reproduced herein above', and described the penalty as a direct consequence of the assessee's failure to comply with statutory notices. It noted the CIT(A)'s observation that the failure to comply with the statutory notices and the lack of a satisfactory response to the show-cause notice collectively indicated clear non-compliance, and found no reason to interfere (paragraph 6).
We note that as a direct consequence of the assessee's failure to comply with statutory notices, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act.
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 WhatsAppOn these facts, no. Where the assessee simply did not respond to either notice, the Chennai Bench held that the Assessing Officer had rightly levied Rs 10,000 for each default under section 272A(1)(d) and dismissed the appeal — the section's own charging words are 'a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such default or failure'. This was decided by the ITAT (Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member and Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member) and bears on section 272A(1)(d), section 142(1), section 143(2), section 147, section 148, section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as I.T.A. No. 1641/Chny/2025 (ITAT Chennai 'A' Bench); no law-report citation traced. This is the Revenue-side authority that the run of taxpayer-favourable section 272A(1)(d) orders conceals, and it is the one your opponent will cite. It settles two things against the assessee: that each unanswered notice is a separate failure carrying its own Rs 10,000, and that where nothing at all was filed in response there is no room for the 'the notice was attended to' argument that succeeded in Amit Jain. Note also how the appeal was lost: nobody appeared for the assessee before the Tribunal, no adjournment petition was filed, and no vakalatnama was on record, so the Bench decided the appeal on merits after hearing only the Departmental Representative. The order is also the cleanest verbatim reproduction of the current section 272A(1) — clauses (a) to (d) and the charging words — that this pass located. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Count the notices before you draft: a penalty of Rs 20,000 or Rs 30,000 is not an arithmetic error, it is Rs 10,000 per unanswered notice, and the statutory words support it.
For assessment year 2018-19 the Assessing Officer reopened the case under section 147 after following the section 148A procedure and issued a notice under section 148 on 16-04-2022, in response to which the assessee filed a return. A notice under section 143(2) was issued on 30-06-2023 calling for information; there was no response. A notice under section 142(1) was issued on 19-03-2024 requiring details by 23-03-2024; again there was no response. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 272A(1)(d), issued a penalty notice on 24-05-2024 and a show-cause letter on 26-08-2024 allowing a reply by 06-09-2024, and the assessee replied on 22-10-2024. The Assessing Officer levied Rs 20,000 — Rs 10,000 for each of the two defaults. The CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the penalty by order dated 29-05-2025. Before the Tribunal nobody appeared for the assessee, no adjournment petition was filed and no vakalatnama authorising any representative was on record, so the Bench proceeded to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the Departmental Representative. The matter was decided on 2025-08-26 by the ITAT (Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member and Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The assessee not having complied with the notice under section 143(2) dated 30-06-2023 or the notice under section 142(1) dated 19-03-2024, the Assessing Officer had rightly levied penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of Rs 20,000, and the confirmation of that penalty by the CIT(A) was justified (paragraph 6).
The Tribunal reproduced section 272A(1) in full, including clause (d) and the closing charging words that the person 'shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such default or failure' (paragraph 5). It then recorded the two notices and the two non-compliances, held that the levy of Rs 20,000 followed 'in view of the provisions of section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, as reproduced herein above', and described the penalty as a direct consequence of the assessee's failure to comply with statutory notices. It noted the CIT(A)'s observation that the failure to comply with the statutory notices and the lack of a satisfactory response to the show-cause notice collectively indicated clear non-compliance, and found no reason to interfere (paragraph 6). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "We note that as a direct consequence of the assessee's failure to comply with statutory notices, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-08-26 and is reported as I.T.A. No. 1641/Chny/2025 (ITAT Chennai 'A' Bench); 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 147, section 148, section 148A, 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 department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The assessee not having complied with the notice under section 143(2) dated 30-06-2023 or the notice under section 142(1) dated 19-03-2024, the Assessing Officer had rightly levied penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of Rs 20,000, and the confirmation of that penalty by the CIT(A) was justified (paragraph 6). It arises in Penalty, Assessment & Scrutiny, Reassessment & Reopening and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters, on section 272A(1)(d), section 142(1), section 143(2), section 147, section 148, section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member and Shri S.R. Raghunatha, 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. Do not build the appeal on the proposition that the default is single; build it on reasonable cause under section 273B for each default separately, or on the notice having been answered. Appear. This appeal was decided on merits against an assessee who filed no vakalatnama, sent no representative and sought no adjournment. Where the assessment was itself completed ex parte after no reply at any stage, expect the Revenue to rely on this order and prepare the section 273B material — illness, non-receipt, a representative's default — rather than a construction argument.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed. No later treatment was searched for or found. The order was passed without any appearance for the assessee, which limits its weight as a considered authority on reasonable cause, though not on the per-default construction of the section. 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.
The order runs to seven numbered paragraphs and its paragraph 5 sets out section 272A(1) clauses (a) to (d) with the charging words. The operative reasoning is in paragraph 6, whose concluding sentence is grammatically broken in the original ('in our opinion, the Assessing Officer has rightly levied penalty ... and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), is justified') — it is reproduced here as printed and has not been tidied. The Tribunal did not discuss section 273B at all; the assessee had filed a reply dated 22-10-2024 to the penalty show-cause notice whose contents the order says are reproduced at page 2 of the penalty order, but the Tribunal does not set them out, so what the assessee actually said by way of cause cannot be read from this document. 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 filed by the assessee was dismissed. The assessee not having complied with the notice under section 143(2) dated 30-06-2023 or the notice under section 142(1) dated 19-03-2024, the Assessing Officer had rightly levied penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of Rs 20,000, and the confirmation of that penalty by the CIT(A) was justified (paragraph 6).
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?
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
How much am I actually required to disclose — and can they reopen because the officer drew the wrong conclusion?
The sanctioning authority just wrote 'yes' and signed. Is that a sanction?