SHREE JALARAM FINANCE,BORSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(4), PETLAD

ITA 1785/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 October 2026AY 2000-018 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 803 days in filing the appeal was not liable to be condoned. The Tribunal found that the explanation provided by the assessee was not satisfactory. It noted that the firm had nine partners, and even after two partners left the country, seven remained. The discontinuation of business in 2005 did not preclude others from attending to tax matters. Furthermore, other tax proceedings for the firm were pursued during the same period, indicating continued attention to its affairs. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had a prolonged non-compliance before the CIT(A) for over thirteen years. The contention that the tax consultant did not communicate the order was not sufficiently explained. Citing the principles from Esha Bhattacharjee and Mani Ram Seva Nyasi Sangh Ayodhya, the Tribunal concluded that there was gross negligence and a lack of care by the assessee. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. The grounds relating to the merits of the penalty were not adjudicated due to the rejection of the condonation application. The issue of the penalty order being time-barred was examined and found not to be barred by limitation based on the dates recorded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shree Jalaram Finance, filed its return for AY 2000-01 declaring Rs. 27,444/-. The assessment was completed on March 28, 2003, at Rs. 47,38,050/-. The AO noted cash receipts of Rs. 83,96,839/- in violation of Section 269SS, initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D. The JCIT imposed a penalty of Rs. 83,96,839/- on November 28, 2003. An earlier appeal to the ITAT resulted in a set-aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal vide an order dated October 22, 2023. The present appeal was filed with a delay of 803 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 803 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the departure of partners and closure of business, and the principles laid down in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur. - Assessee's contention: The delay was due to partners leaving the country, closure of business, and the tax consultant not communicating the CIT(A)'s order. They seek restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) for a reasonable opportunity of being heard. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the penalty order dated November 28, 2003, passed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is time-barred, considering the initiation of penalty proceedings on May 22, 2003. - Assessee's contention: The penalty order is time-barred and legally unsustainable. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271D to an extent of Rs. 56,44,070/- and enhancing it by Rs. 30,23,303/-.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS,Section 275(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA & SHRI SANJAY KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Kalpana Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.09.2026Pronounced: 13.10.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 22.10.2023 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2000-01 in the proceeding u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2000-01 on 30.10.2000 declaring income of Shree Jalaram Finance Vs ITO, AY- 2000-01 2 Rs.27,444/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 28.03.2003 at t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →