What the courts have decided on section 272A(1)(d), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Jaya Rinkubhai Bandukwala v ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), Surat
ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
The Assessing Officer has levied Rs 30,000 under section 272A(1)(d) — Rs 10,000 for each of three notices I did not answer. Can he multiply the penalty like that, and what can I actually get reduced?
Yes, the section provides a penalty of Rs 10,000 per default and the Assessing Officer may levy one for each unanswered notice; the Surat Bench said so in terms. But section 273B is not all-or-nothing on the facts: finding that reasonable cause existed for some of the defaults and not for others, the Tribunal restricted the total from Rs 30,000 to Rs 10,000.
-
Balakumar Anusia v ACIT, International Taxation Circle, Madurai
ITATHelps department
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'.
-
Amit Jain v DCIT, Circle (International Taxation), Jaipur
ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
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.
-
Hanuman Prasad & Sons v DCIT/ACIT, NFAC
ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
I answered the section 142(1) notice late — after the show-cause notice — but the Assessing Officer used my reply and completed a section 143(3) assessment. Can he still levy Rs 10,000 under section 272A(1)(d)?
Not on this reasoning. Where the assessee complied, though belatedly, well before the assessment order was framed, and the Assessing Officer considered the reply and the documents in framing a section 143(3) assessment, the Allahabad Bench held the case does not fall in the category of non-compliance at all, and deleted the penalty. It added, independently, that in the first year of the shift from physical to electronic proceedings a delay caused by the change in the mode of communication is bona fide and not deliberate.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.
