ANIL BANSAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 44(6), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2904/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 July 2026AY 2018-197 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the FAA, directing the FAA to adjudicate all grounds on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened following a search, leading to an addition for bogus purchases. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1). The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex parte without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on merits and without condoning the delay, and whether the penalty order was time-barred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC(1),Section 275(1)(c),Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “E” NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Ashu Garg, CA
For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 21.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E” NEW DELHI MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAs No.2904 & 2905/Del/2026 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Bansal, ITO, B-5/9, Miya Wali Nagar, Ward 44(6), Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Delhi. v/s PAN: AHWPB9455H Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Ashu Garg, CA Department by Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR 21.07.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 21.07.2026

ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

These appeals are filed by the assessee, challenging the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.s’ for short) 2018-19 and 2019-20, respectively.

2.

It is observed that the assessee has filed these appeals belatedly beyond the period of limitation for which the assessee has filed applications along with affidavits for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same and

2 ITAs No.2904 & 2905/Del/2026 Anil Bansal vs. ITO considering the rival contentions, we deem it fit to condone the delay as there being ‘sufficient cause.’ Delay condoned.

3.

As the facts are identical, we pass a consolidate order by taking ITA No.2904/Del/2026 relevant to AY 2018-19 as a lead case. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned penalty order passed u/s 271AAC(1) by levying penalty of Rs.1,21,256/- is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty order dated 16/07/2025 under section 271AAC(1) of the Act which is clearly barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c) of the Act. (ii) That the assessment order for AY 2018-19 was passed on 13/03/2024 and was the subject-matter of appeal, the first appellate (quantum) order was passed on 07/Oct/2024, and the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) was passed on 16/07/2025, but the penalty proceedings having been initiated earlier, the penalty order dated 16/07/2025 was passed well beyond the statutory outer limit of limitation, i.e., after the expiry of six months from the end of the relevant quarter (i.e., 30/06/2025) and is therefore time- barred and void ab initio. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without adjudicating the grounds raised by the appellant on merits, which is contrary to the mandate of section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”). 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disposing of the appeal without granting a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and without passing a speaking order on each ground of appeal raised by the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and without

3 ITAs No.2904 & 2905/Del/2026 Anil Bansal vs. ITO ensuring proper and valid physical service of notice of hearing upon the appellant thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in uploading the invoking of Section 69C read with Section 115BBE. (ii) That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition, which is made without providing any opportunity of cross-examination. (iii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the voluminous evidence produced by the assessee, including tax invoices, GR receipts, Dharma Kanta slips, party ledger confirmations, bank statements, and GST returns. (iv) That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disputing the reliance made upon third- party statements and cancellation of GST registration of the supplier does not, by itself, prove any bogus purchase, particularly when the assessee’s purchases and sales are duly recorded in books and reflected in GST filings. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the transactions were duly corroborated, and there was no evidence to show any cash payment or accommodation entry. 8. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Bhawani Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 11 TMI 1025, where it was held that additions based on statements of third parties like Sh. Deepak Sharma, without independent corroboration, are unsustainable and reassessments based on such grounds are invalid. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the facts of the present case being identical, the penalty arising from such invalid and unsubstantiated addition cannot stand. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in appreciating that no wilful concealment or misrepresentation was ever established, nor was there any element of mens rea, as the entire transaction was recorded in regular books of accounts. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

4 ITAs No.2904 & 2905/Del/2026 Anil Bansal vs. ITO 4. Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for the year under consideration dated 29.08.2018 declaring the total income at Rs.5,52,320/-. The assessee’s case was reopened pursuant to a search u/s 132 of the Act on the Deepak Sharma Group of Mandi Gobindgarh from which information was received that the assessee had received accommodation entry way of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.15,54,575/- from Shri Deepak Sharma. After considering the assessee’s submissions, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order dated 13.03.2024 under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income at Rs.21,06,895/- after making an addition of Rs.15,54,575/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. The Ld. AO, also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC of the Act. The assessee preferred appeal challenging the order before the First Appellate Authority (‘FAA’, for short), who, vide order dated 07.10.2024, had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Ld. AO issued notices under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act dated 04.04.2024 and 03.06.2025 which were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The Ld. AO, then, passed the penalty order dated 16.07.2025 under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act levying penalty amounting to Rs.1,21,256/- on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish any explanation by failing to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the penalty levied by the Ld. AO.

5 ITAs No.2904 & 2905/Del/2026 Anil Bansal vs. ITO 5. The Ld. CIT(A), vide an ex parte order dated 01.12.2025, had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay of 84 days in filing the first appeal beyond the period of limitation. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee has been non-compliant during the penalty proceedings before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) and has also failed to substantiate the delay caused in filing the first appeal beyond the period of limitation. The assessee has failed to explain the delay with sufficient cause. Before us, the Ld. AR for the assessee prayed that the assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case before the FAA stating that the assessee has got a good case on the merits.

7.

The Ld. DR vehemently opposed to granting the assessee another opportunity for the reason that the assessee has been non-compliant throughout the proceedings before the lower authorities.

8.

On the above facts of the case, we deem it fit to extend the assessee with one more opportunity to present his case before the FAA by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceedings before the FAA who is to

6 ITAs No.2904 & 2905/Del/2026 Anil Bansal vs. ITO adjudicate all the grounds raised by the assessee, both legal as well as on the merits, in accordance with the provisions of law and on the merits of the case. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No.2905/Del/2026 (AY 2019-20)

10.

The findings given in ITA No.2904/Del/2026 as above would apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also.

11.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21 .07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 21st July, 2026 dk

7 ITAs No.2904 & 2905/Del/2026 Anil Bansal vs. ITO Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Dr, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True COPY// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Delhi Benches

More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →