UNIMAXE BUILDSTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1210/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 October 2026AY 2013-1410 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) constituted a "sufficient cause." The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471 (SC)) for a liberal interpretation of provisions for condonation of delay. Consequently, the delay of 430 and 607 days in ITA Nos. 1210 & 1213/JPR/2025 (AYs 2013-14 & 2019-20) was condoned, and these appeals were set aside to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merits after the decision of the quantum appeals, with an adequate opportunity of being heard. For ITA Nos. 1211 & 1212/JPR/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18), the Tribunal found that the assessee had made due compliance on 06.05.2023 after an adjournment request was declined. Therefore, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) were not liable to be initiated for subsequent defaults. Citing a coordinate bench decision in Shri Puneet Narang vs. ITO, the Tribunal restricted the penalty to the first default of Rs. 10,000/- each and ordered the deletion of the rest of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Unimaxe Buildestate Pvt. Ltd., filed four appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging penalty orders for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2019-20. The penalties were levied under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including Section 271(1)(c), Section 271(1)(b), Section 272A(1)(d), and Section 270A. The appeals before the ITAT arose after the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the assessee's appeals in limine due to delays of 430 and 607 days in filing for AYs 2013-14 and 2019-20, respectively. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, the CIT(A) also dismissed the penalty appeals. The assessee's primary contention was that the penalty proceedings were initiated prematurely or that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine on grounds of delay, without condoning the delay, thereby violating principles of natural justice and failing to adjudicate on merits, particularly when the assessee cited reasons such as the accountant leaving without notice and the director's limited technical knowledge for the delay (relevant for AYs 2013-14 & 2019-20)? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act when the quantum appeal against the assessment order was still pending before the same appellate authority, making the penalty proceedings premature? 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance with notices, when the assessee contended that compliance was made after an adjournment request was declined and that penalty should be restricted to the first default (relevant for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18)? Assessee's Contentions: - For AYs 2013-14 & 2019-20: The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was due to sufficient cause, including the accountant's unannounced departure and the director's lack of technical expertise. The penalty proceedings were premature as the quantum appeals were pending. The CIT(A) dismissed appeals without adjudicating on merits. - For AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18: Compliance was made on 06.05.2023 after an adjournment request was declined, and penalty under Section 271(1)(b) should be deleted or restricted to the first default. Revenue's Contentions: - For AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18: The assessee did not comply at any stage, and the penalty is liable to be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b),Section 272A(1)(d),Section 270A,Section 144,Section 147,Section 142(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRAKASH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No: 1210 to 1213/JPR/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20 Unimaxe Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. The ACIT, A-47, Rathi Nagar, Gopalpura Central Circle, Vs Bye Pass, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. PAN: AABCU3476A (Respondent) (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Deepak Sharma, C.A. Revenue Represented: Sh. Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 05-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 13-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellants, Unimaxe Buildestate Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing aforesaid interconnected appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders all dated 30.06.2026 for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20, imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), 272A(1)(d) and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) respectively, on the grounds inter- alia that:- ITA No. 1210/JPR/2025 ( A.Y. 2013-14)

I.T.A No. 1210 to 1213/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Unimaxe Buildestate Pvt. Ltd.

“ Ground No. 1: The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Ground No. 2: Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in initiating and imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, despite the appeal against assessment order being pending. The action of AO so confirmed by CIT(A) is contrary to law as well as facts and deserves to be quashed.

Ground No. 3: That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the corresponding quantum appeal was still sub judice before the very same appellate authority. The impugned action is ex facie premature, suffers from legal infirmity, is in undue haste, and is unsustainable both in law and on facts, and therefore deserves to be quashed.

Ground No. 4: That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing, without appreciating or adjudicating upon the merits of the case. Such an approach is contrary to law and facts, violative of the settled principles of natural justice, and renders the impugned order liable to be set aside.

Ground No. 5: That the appellant craves your indulgence to add, amend, modify, delete or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

ITA No. 1211/JPR/2025 ( A.Y. 2016-17)

“Ground No. 1: The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Ground No. 2: Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in initiating and imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The action of AO so confirmed by CIT(A) is contrary to law as well as facts and deserves to be quashed.

Ground No. 3: That the appellant craves your indulgence to add, amend, modify, delete or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

ITA No. 1212/JPR/2025 ( A.Y. 2017-18)

“Ground No. 1: The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 272A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

I.T.A No. 1210 to 1213/JPR/2025 Page No 3 Unimaxe Buildestate Pvt. Ltd.

Ground No. 2: Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in initiating and imposing the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The action of AO so confirmed by CIT(A) is contrary to law as well as facts and deserves to be quashed.

Ground No. 3: That the appellant craves your indulgence to add, amend, modify, delete or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” ITA No. 1213/JPR/2025 ( A.Y. 2019-20) “Ground No. 1: The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Ground No. 2: Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in initiating and imposing the penalty u/s 270A of the Act, despite the appeal against assessment order being pending. The action of AO so confirmed by CIT(A) is contrary to law as well as facts and deserves to be quashed.

Ground No. 3: That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the corresponding quantum appeal was still sub judice before the very same appellate authority. The impugned action is ex facie premature, suffers from legal infirmity, is in undue haste, and is unsustainable both in law and on facts, and therefore deserves to be quashed.

Ground No. 4: That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing, without appreciating or adjudicating upon the merits of the case. Such an approach is contrary to law and facts, violative of the settled principles of natural justice, and renders the impugned order liable to be set aside.

Ground No. 5: That the appellant craves your indulgence to add, amend, modify, delete or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” ITA No. 1210 & 1213/JPR/2025 2. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the identical issues in the aforesaid appeals, as taken from ITA No. 1210/JPR/2026 for A.Y. 2013-14 are: On the

I.T.A No. 1210 to 1213/JPR/2025 Page No 4 Unimaxe Buildestate Pvt. Ltd.

basis of assessment framed u/s 144/147 of the Act, at the total income of Rs. 6,53,503/-, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On failure of the assessee to appear before the AO in penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs. 18,16,612/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. In ITA No. 1213/JPR/2025 for A.Y. 2019-20, on the basis of assessment framed u/s 143(3)r.w.s. 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs. 41,70,910/-, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings on account of misreporting of the income u/s 270A of the Act and thereby levy the penalty of Rs. 50,80,874/- @ 200% on the tax evaded by the assessee. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals, who has dismissed both the appeals in limine by not condoning the delay of 430 & 607 days respectively. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 5. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 6. The impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) goes to shows that assessee’s reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.

I.T.A No. 1210 to 1213/JPR/2025 Page No 5 Unimaxe Buildestate Pvt. Ltd.

CIT(A) have not been found favour. Reasons put forth by the assessee for condonation of delay is after passing of ex-parte order due to non availability of accountant, who had left the job without intimation, they could not file the appeals within time; that due to limited knowledge of director of the company to operate the income tax portal, the appeals could not be filed; that delay was neither intentional, nor deliberate. 7. Perusal of the assessment orders as well as penalty orders passed in both the appeals goes to shows that the assessee was ex- parte and has not contested the proceedings by putting in appearance before the Assessing Officer. When the assessee has come up with specific plea that the director of the company was not tech-savvy to operate the income tax portal and their accountant has left the job without intimation and as such assessment orders as well as penalty orders remained unattended, is a “sufficient cause” not to file the appeals in time. Moreover when both assessment orders as well as penalty orders are ex-parte knowledge of pendency of the assessment proceedings cannot be attributed to the assessee.

I.T.A No. 1210 to 1213/JPR/2025 Page No 6 Unimaxe Buildestate Pvt. Ltd.

8.

Moreover this is a matter of common knowledge that due to digitalization, no doubt system has become swift, but it is also creating problem for the common persons, who are not tech-savvy. In these circumstances provisions for condonation of delay need to be interpreted liberally as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471 (SC). So finding it a “sufficient cause” we hereby condone the delay of 430 & 607 days in ITA No. 1210 & 1213/JPR/2025 and appeals are being heard on merits. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned orders brought the fact on record that quantum appeal against the assessment orders, on the basis of which penalty has been levied are yet to be decided by the Ld. CIT(A). When the quantum appeals are pending before the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal against the penalty were not to be disposed off as their outcome is entirely based upon the decision to be taken in the quantum proceedings. More so assessee has statutory right to get his appeal decided on merits, which were earlier dismissed in limine on account of not condoning the delay in filing the appeals. In view of the matter impugned orders passed in both the appeals bearing ITA No. 1210 &

I.T.A No. 1210 to 1213/JPR/2025 Page No 7 Unimaxe Buildestate Pvt. Ltd.

1213/JPR/2025 are hereby set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to be decided on merits after decision of the quantum appeals by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ITA No. 1211& 1212/JPR/2025 ( A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) 10. On the basis of reopening u/s 147 of the Act, assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for not complying with the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and thereby levied the penalty of Rs. 40,000/- each in ITA No. 1211 & 1212/JPR/2025 @ Rs. 10,000/- per default u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 11. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals, who has dismissed the penalty appeals. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 12. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 13. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned orders contended that as per screen shot of adjournment request for 9th March, 2023 available at page 5 of the paper book, adjournment

I.T.A No. 1210 to 1213/JPR/2025 Page No 8 Unimaxe Buildestate Pvt. Ltd.

was sought, but declined and thereafter as per e-proceedings response acknowledgment dated 06.05.2023 compliance were made for both the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18, in respect of the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and as such penalty levied on the assessee is liable to be deleted. 14. However on the other hand Ld. DR for the Revenue by relying upon the assessment order, penalty order and impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) contended that the assessee has not complied with the proceedings at any stage of the proceedings and as such penalty is liable to be confirmed. 15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in which assessee was initially ex-parte, who has filed an adjournment application, which was declined and ultimately the assessee has made compliance by filing necessary documents on 06.05.2023, which is a due compliance as per law. 16. In the given circumstances penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act are not liable to be initiated. Moreover when the AO has made best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act, subsequent notices issued on 30.01.2023, 09.03.2023 & 09.04.2023, are representation of first notice, on which the assessee has defaulted.

I.T.A No. 1210 to 1213/JPR/2025 Page No 9 Unimaxe Buildestate Pvt. Ltd.

Because the Assessing Officer in continuation of first notice issued 3 more notices, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is imposable for first default committed by the assessee for not complying with the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. 17. Identical issue was decided by the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in case of Shri Puneet Narang vs. ITO, ITA No. 870/JP/2024 dated 27/08/2024. So in view of the matter we hereby restrict the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer to first default to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- each and rest of the penalty levied by the AO in A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Challenged by assessee by way of present appeals are hereby order to be deleted. 18. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA No. 1210 & 1213/JPR/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeals bearing ITA No. 1211 & 1212/JPR/2025 are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13-10-2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 13/10/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to:

I.T.A No. 1210 to 1213/JPR/2025 Page No 10 Unimaxe Buildestate Pvt. Ltd.

1.

The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order, Asst. Registrar

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →