JAY PRAKASH SINGH,DELHI vs. CIRCLE 70(1),DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3004/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 September 2026AY 2012-136 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's justification for the delay to be adequate and unintentional, acknowledging that no litigant benefits from intentionally delaying their own matters. Regarding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal noted the undisputed fact that the Assessing Officer had passed an appeal effect order on 18.02.2025, deleting the additions made in the order under Section 144/147. Consequently, there was no concealed income available for penalty on the date the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was passed (03.03.2025). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.17,62,147/-. For the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal considered the affidavits filed by the assessee, noting his lack of conversance with tax laws and dependence on professionals. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.20,000/-. The ratio decidendi for the Section 271(1)(c) penalty is that penalty cannot be levied when the basis for the penalty (concealed income) ceases to exist due to subsequent favorable appellate orders. For the Section 271(1)(b) penalty, the Tribunal exercised its discretion in the interest of justice, considering the assessee's circumstances.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jay Prakash Singh, filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, dated 14.10.2025. These appeals challenged penalty orders passed under Section 271(1)(b) and Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeals before the Tribunal suffered from a delay of 82 and 447 days, respectively. The assessee attributed this delay to a lack of familiarity with tax laws and reliance on a counsel who allegedly failed to inform him about the dismissal of his appeals before the CIT(A) and the subsequent limitation periods. The Assessing Officer had initially passed an order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 on 13.12.2019, determining income at Rs.88,62,738/- against a returned income of Rs.4,87,550/-, with additions including Rs.80 lakhs on Long Term Capital Gains and Rs.3,75,188/- on account of undisclosed salary income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of being unfamiliar with tax laws and relying on professional counsel who allegedly failed to provide proper guidance regarding the dismissal of appeals before the CIT(A) and subsequent limitation periods. (Question of fact) 2. Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of Rs.17,62,147/- is sustainable when the Assessing Officer passed an appeal effect order on 18.02.2025, indicating that the additions made in the order under Section 144/147 were deleted, thereby leaving no concealed income for penalty purposes. (Question of law and fact) 3. Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of Rs.20,000/- for non-compliance with statutory notices is justifiable, given the assessee's claim of genuine personal grounds and dependence on professional for compliance. (Question of fact) Assessee's contentions: The delay was unintentional and bona fide due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and lack of professional guidance. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should be deleted as there was no concealed income after the appeal effect order. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) should be deleted on lenient grounds due to personal reasons and reliance on professionals. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c),Section 144,Section 147,Section 154,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Pronounced: 25.09.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.3003 and 3004/DEL/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2012-13) JAY PRAKASH SINGH CIRCLE 70(1),DELHI C/O CA R.S. POONIA,D-82- 45, OPPOSITE PANCHSHILA B,SIWAD AREA,KRISHNA RENDEZVOUS, MAIN MARKET MARG,BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR- ROAD, MALVIYA NAGAR, Vs. 302015, RAJASTHAN NEW DELHI NEW DELHI-110017, DELHI अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: BKQPS1450P

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: CA R. S. Poonia (through VC) ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Raghuveer Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 09.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 25.09.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM

Both appeals have been preferred by the same assessee against the order dated 14.10.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of penalty order dated 1402.2025 passed u/s 271(1)(b) and penalty order dated 03.03.2025 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The Registry has identified a delay of 82 days and 447 days in these cases, in filing of these appeals before the tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as the assessee is not fully conversant with complicated tax laws, after passing of the assessment order, the appellant had engaged a counsel to represent him before the CIT(A). The said counsel assured the assessee that he will do all the needful compliance and look after the notices and communications received from the CIT(A). The appellant was under bona fide belief that his appeal was being properly pursued. The appellant subsequently came to know about the dismissal and the legal consequences thereof only at a later stage, when the assessee visited the office of the counsel to check the status of the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A). Then he came to know that his appeals were dismissed ex- parte. However, the appellant was not made aware of the legal implications and limitation period for further appeals before this Hon’ble Tribunal by his professional. Therefore, the delay is purely unintentional, bona fide, and due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The Ld. DR did not object to the condonation of delay. We have considered the justification put forth by the assessee and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate both these appeals. 3. Both the appeals of the assessee have been preferred against confirmation of adverse orders passed u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. CIT(A).

For the purposes of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order. ITA No.3004/Del/2026 4. The appellant is contesting the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 14.10.2025 passed by DIN & order no.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081751636(1). The appellant has submitted that in its case order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 was passed by the ld. Assessing Officer on 13.12.2019. The ld. Assessing Officer had determined income of the assessee at Rs.88,62,738/- as against returned income of Rs.4,87,550/-. The additions made included Rs.80 lakhs on Long Term Capital Gains and Rs.3,75,188/- on account of undisclosed salary income. The ld. CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to verify indexed cost of acquisition and claim of exemption u/s 54 and recalculate long term capital gains. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to verify appellant’s claim of exempted allowances and perquisite while calculating income from salary. 5. It is the case of the ld. Counsel that the ld. Assessing Officer gave appeal effect dated 18.02.2025 to the order of ld. CIT(A) which indicated that full relief was given to the assessee. In support of his contentions, the appellant assessee has filed a screenshot of information to this effect provided to the appellant by the ld. Assessing Officer. The appellant has further submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer has passed in its case an order u/s 154 dated 14.05.2026, where it was confirmed that in appellant’s case, appeal effect was given on 18.02.2025 and that consequently a demand of Rs.2,29,670/- was raised on account of non-allowance of credit of prepaid taxes. A copy of the impugned order has also been placed on records by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant assessee that inspite of no concealment demand available in appellant’s hands, the ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to pass penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), dated 03.03.2025 imposing penalty of Rs.17,62,147/- without considering the appeal effect order dated 18.02.2025. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the said fact could not be considered by the ld. CIT(A) through his order dated 14.10.2025 (supra) as the same was passed ex-parte. The ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly requested for deletion of the penalty order. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on records. We have noted the undisputed facts on record that the consequent to directions of ld. CIT(A), the ld. Assessing Officer had passed an appeal effect order on 18.02.2025, whereby the additions made in the order u/s 144/147 were deleted. Consequently, there was no concealed income available for any penalty on the date of passing of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) on 03.03.2025. Considering this undisputed fact on records, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.17,62,147/- imposed upon the assessee through order u/s 271(1)(c) on 03.03.2025. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. ITA No.3003/Del/2026

8.

The appellant is contesting the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs.20,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 14.02.2025. We have noted that the order u/s 144/147 was passed by the ld. Assessing Officer for non-compliance to statutory notices of the Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that because of genuine personal grounds, the assessee could not make compliance to the notices of ld. Assessing Officer. It was requested that a lenient view be taken and the penalty be deleted. 9. The ld. DR placed reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on records. We have noted from the affidavits filed by the assessee that he is not conversant with tax laws. We have also noted that the assessee was dependent upon his professional for compliance before lower authorities and possibly the said professional did not make due compliances. Be that as it may be, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.20,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 12. Finally, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th September, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25.09.2026 Shekhar

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →