AMIT JAIN,DELHI vs. WARD 59(5), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1592/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 June 2025AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the COVID-19 pandemic period and the assessee's explanation for not receiving the penalty order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order under section 271B, but it was delayed by 212 days. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone this delay, citing a lack of justifiable reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the pandemic period and the assessee's explanation for non-receipt of the order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Respondent: Dr. |

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.1592/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Sh. Amit Jain, | Vs. | ITO, Ward-59(5), H. No. 120, 1st Floor, | Delhi Bahubali Enclave, Karkardooma, New Delhi PAN: AKPPJ2707C (Appellant) | (Respondent)

Assessee by | None Department by | Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr.

Date of hearing | 03.06.2025 Date of pronouncement | 03.06.2025

ORDER

This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the "CIT(A)/NFAC"], Delhi's DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072256404(1), dated 17.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee's behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

- 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 212 days in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 24.04.2022 against the Assessing Officer's penalty order u/s 271B dated 23.08.2021, thereby holding him to have failed in submitting any justifiable reasons thereof. - 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the majority of the intervening time period between the above Assessing Officer's processing and the date of the institution of the assessee's lower appeal already stands covered under the covid-19 pandemic outbreak period from 15th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 in the light of (2022) 441 ITR 722 in Cognizance for Exclusion of Limitation, In Re. - 5. This is indeed coupled with the fact that he had sought to explain before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC that the impugned processing had also not been received in the intervening time period. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to condone the foregoing delay of 212 days in the light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and the assessee's instant appeal is restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh appropriate

adjudication subject to a rider that he shall plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities, at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

6.

This appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd June, 2025

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 3rd June, 2025.

RK/-

Copy forwarded to:

- 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT - 4. CIT(A) - 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →