Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals with the CIT(A) after significant delays, for which condonation was sought. The assessee claimed not to have received notices from the AO and CIT(A) due to incorrect email addresses being used.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide and not due to intentional avoidance. The matter was restored to the AO for de-novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) should be condoned due to non-receipt of notices and if the penalty order u/s 271F is sustainable when the assessment order is set aside.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 271F, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) Shshank Varshney, Income Tax Officer, Jyoti Seets, Brahm Bazar, Ward-2(5), Dist:-Sambhal, Vs. Chandausi. Uttar Pradesh-244412. PAN-CMCPK9337C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by CA Ramsha Department by Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 16/07/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: These two appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘the Ld. CIT” in short) arising out of the order of Assessing Officer passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the appeal delayed by 592 days before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and also filed appeal delayed by 427 days against penalty order u/s 271F of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has not admitted both the appeals of the assessee on account of delay by not condoning the delay in filing the appeals.
Shashank Varshne vs. ITO 3. Against these separate orders of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by stating that the assessee has not received the notices issued by the AO as well as CIT(A) as the notices were stated to have being sent on the email address” chinto1411988@gmail.com which was neither belong to assessee nor his earlier counsel. As the notices issued from time to time were not received by the assessee, the necessary compliance could not be made before the lower authorities. Assessee also filed an affidavit in support of the contentions raised for the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) which reads as under:
It is further submitted that when the AO persuaded to deposit the outstanding demand, assessee came to know about the passing of assessment order and penalty order and immediately contacted another counsel for filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was the submission of the assessee that Ld. Shashank Varshne vs. ITO CIT(A) has also sent the notices on the wrong email id, therefore, they could not be complied with. It is thus, humble prayed by the Ld. AR that delay being un- intentional and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the same may be contended and both the appeals of the assessee be remanded back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as the assessment order was also passed ex- parte.
On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR support the orders of the lower authorities and submits that the assessee failed to respond to any statutory notices and, therefore, the lower authorities has rightly made the additions. He further submits that since no return of income was filed by the assessee therefore, the penalty u/s 271F was rightly levied and request for the confirmation of the order of the lower authorities.
Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the reasons stated by the assessee that notices of hearing were served upon wrong email id, therefore, necessary compliance could not be made. It appears that the reasons stated by the assessee for delay are bonafide and, there is no intentional avoidance on the part of the assessee. The assessee could not be punished for negligence, particularly when the notices were not sent to the correct address of the assessee. Though, in case of delay, there must be some lapse on the part of the assessee, yet it is not enough to turn down plea and shut the doors. Therefore, after considering these facts and in the larger interest of justice, in our considered opinion, appeal deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and since the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was also ex-parte, therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of the AO with the direction to pass the assessment order de-novo afresh after affording proper opportunities to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the 7. This appeal is against the levy of penalty u/s 271F of the Act for non- filing of return which is initiated in the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 25.03.2022. Since, we have already set aside the assessment order passed to the file of AO, therefore, the penalty order u/s 271F is also set aside to the file of the AO as the penalty u/s 271F was initiated in the same reassessment order with the liberty to initiate the penalty proceedings in the set aside proceedings in accordance with law. With this, the present appeal of the assessee is also partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced on 16 /07/2025.