BHAVYA BROADCAST PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, GB NAGAR, UP vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1) G B NAGAR , NOIDA, UP

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8800/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2026AY 2017-184 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 held that when an assessment order under Section 143(3) is passed, it creates a presumption that earlier non-compliance has been condoned. Therefore, a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is not justifiable in such circumstances.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice. The notice was sent to the previous Chartered Accountant's email, and the assessee argued that the subsequent completion of assessment under Section 143(3) implied condonation of the non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is leviable for non-compliance with a notice when the assessment is subsequently completed under Section 143(3), implying condonation of the default.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D Shah, Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.03.2026Pronounced: 27.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER

ITA No.8800/DEL/2025 [Assessment Year: 2017-18]

BHAVYA BROADCAST DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1) G B PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGAR, Reliance Energy, Block A, C-28 SECTOR-63, NOIDA, Vs Tulsi Marg, Sector 24, Noida, Uttar GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR Pradesh 201307 UTTAR PRADESH-201301 PAN-AAGCB3823P Appellant Respondent

Appellant/Assessee by CA, Shri Prakash D Shah Respondent/Revenue by Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.05.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeals Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New

Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 30.01.2023 arising out of assessment order dated 03.12.2019 passed under section 272(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The word ‘Act’

herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

ITA No.8800/Del/2025

1.

That the learned CIT(Appeal)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by confirming the penalty imposed of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, though the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act has been passed, and therefore, the learned AO should be directed to delete the penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act.” 3. At the outset, we have noted that the Registry has identified the delay

of 1000 days in this case for filing of appeal. Justifying the delay, the appellant had submitted that due to bona fide and unavoidable reasons

including administrative constraints and delay in obtaining professional

advice, the appeal could not file in time. The ld. Counsel submitted that

reasons for delay, inter alia, is on account of non-communication of an order

received on email id akp.advit@gmail.com of assessee’s Chartered

accountant and also on account of ignorance of legal procedure and

proceeding & mis-interpretation of law and wrong advice of the previous

Chartered Accountant and thereafter, accordingly on the advice of the another Chartered Accountant Firm, filed appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, it was

argued that the delay is not intentional. We are conscious that no litigant

gains by delay its matter. Delay of 1000 days in filing of the assessee’s

instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Hon’ble

Apex court decision in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst.

Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

Heard rival parties and perused the material on records.

Page 2 of 4

ITA No.8800/Del/2025

5.

The only issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal is regarding

the imposition of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the

assessee submitted that the penalty has been imposed for non-compliance of the notice dated 17.10.2019. The ld. Counsel submitted that the said notice

was sent on the email id being akp.advit@gmail.com, which belonged to the

earlier Chartered Accountant. It is the case of the assessee that the ld. AO has

passed an order under section 143(3) and that therefore it leads to

presumption that the ld. AO had condoned the non-compliance of earlier

notices. Consequently, no penalty was leviable in this case.

6.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the order of this

Tribunal in the case of Geetu Kamra vs ITO vide ITA No.5144/Del/2024

dated 27.02.2025 holding as under:-

“…8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and case laws relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, the assessee failed to respond to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dt. 02.11.2019, however, in response, subsequent notices, the assessee has made necessary compliances and thereafter the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, by respectfully following the decision referred to (supra), we find that the penalty-imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act is not justifiable in the present case. Further the AO himself has deemed to have condoned the default of assessee of making noncompliance on earlier occasion as the assessment was finally passed u/s 143(3) of the Act after considering the necessary information and evidences furnished by the assessee subsequently. Under these circumstances, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A), and direct the AO to delete the penalty…” 7. The ld. DR placed reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities. Page 3 of 4

ITA No.8800/Del/2025

8.

We have noted that in the case of Geetu Kamra vs ITO (supra), a co-

ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has held that as the ld. AO passed the order

u/s 143(3) of the Act, there is definite presumption qua condonation of earlier

non-compliance and that therefore penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act is not

permissible. Therefore, by respectfully following the decision rendered supra,

we hold that penalty is not justified in the present case. Accordingly, the

ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27TH May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUMITA ROY] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27.05.2026 f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 272A(1)(d)

All 1,125 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →