PAWAN,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 3, ROHTAK

1 ITA No. 4094/Del/2026 Pawan Vs. ITO

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 4094/DEL/2026 (A.Y. 2012-13) Pawan Vs ITO H. No. 63, S/o Sh. Jai Pal, VPO Ward-3 Birbarkatabad Tehsil- Zila Parishad Building, Bahadurgarh Jhajjar, Rohtak, Rohtak, Haryana Haryana �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:BQNPP1056P Appellant .. Respondent

Assessee by Ms. Tanuja Rawat, Adv (VC) Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12/08/2026 Date of Pronouncement 23/10/2026

ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The application for condonation of delay of 349 days in filing

Appeal and appeal filed by the Appellant/assessee are against order

dated 17.02.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Act”) arising out of penalty order dated 16.03.2022 of Ld. Assessing

2 ITA No. 4094/Del/2026 Pawan Vs. ITO

Officer/Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 271

(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13.

Assessee is a small farmer engaged in agriculture activities has limited

knowledge of income tax law and is dependent on professional

assistance. The Assessee was not served with notice. The explanation

for condonation of delay of 349 days in filing appeal does not smack of

mala-fides as appellant has not gained anything by not filing appeal

within period of limitation, therefore, delay of 349 days in filing appeal

before the Tribunal is condoned.

income under Section 139(1) of the Act for A.Y 2012-13. As per

AIR/CIB Information the Assessee had deposited cash of Rs.

61,52,000/- in his bank account in Financial Year 2011-12 relevant

to A.Y 2012-13. The Assessee vide letter dated 13.03.2019 was

required to explain the source of cash deposited with remained

uncomplied with. Proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were

initiated. Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2019 was

issued. The Assessee failed to file copy of return. Notices under

Section 142(1) along with questionnaire dated 01.08.2019, 20.09.2019

3 ITA No. 4094/Del/2026 Pawan Vs. ITO

and show cause notice dated 28.10.2019 were issued but of no use.

On completion of proceedings Ld. AO vide ex-parte order made

addition of Rs. 61,52,000/- and initiated penalty proceedings under

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty proceedings were completed

vide order dated 16.03.2022. Penalty of Rs. 52,45,584/- was imposed.

appellant/assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed

vide order dated 17.02.2025.

following grounds:

“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 271(1)(c) by the Ld. AO 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 16/03/2022 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is clearly barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c) of the Act. (ii) That the penalty proceedings were initiated with the assessment order dated 25/11/2019 for AY 2012-13 and six months from the end of relevant FY ended on 30/09/2020 thereby the penalty order dated 16/03/2022 is beyond the statutory time limit under section 275(1)(c), the penalty order is 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

4 ITA No. 4094/Del/2026 Pawan Vs. ITO

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 ensuring proper and valid physical service of notice of hearing upon the appellant thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO has erred in issuing the penalty notice dated 25/11/2019 under section 271(1)(c) without specifying the limb, whether there is concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, under which the penalty was invoked for, making the notice defective and the penalty order dated 16/03/2022 invalid as per settled law. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the Ld.AO has failed to record in writing the satisfaction regarding concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the assessment order or penalty notice dated 25/11/2019 or further notices, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid and the penalty order dated 16/03/2022 without jurisdiction and bad in law. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the imposition of penalty without ensuring valid service of statutory notices both in assessment and penalty proceedings, as notices u/s 142(1) and 274 were never served on the appellant either at the correct address thereby denying the appellant an effective opportunity of being heard in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 17,48,528/- on the alleged addition of Rs. 61,52,000/- treating the cash deposits of Rs. 61,52,000/- in the bank account of the assessee as undisclosed income. (ii) That the said addition has been made without appreciating that cash deposits of Rs. 61,52,000/- were sourced from genuine sources available with the appellant. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty order dated 16/03/2022, which is erroneous as the onus to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies strictly on the Revenue, and a mere claim not accepted by the A.O. does not automatically attract penalty. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

5 ITA No. 4094/Del/2026 Pawan Vs. ITO

CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty order which was time bared as per

Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) decided appeal vide ex-parte

order in violation of principles of natural justice. The matter may be

restored to the file of Ld. AO.

failed to appear before Departmental Authorities.

is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide ex-parte order dated 17.02.2205

dismissed the appeal on ground of delay of 624 days in filing appeal

before Ld. CIT(A) and on merits. Appellant/assessee was proceeded

against ex-parte during the assessment proceedings.

Appellant/assessee, a small farmer engaged in agriculture activities

has prayed for restoration of matter to file of Ld. AO.

orders dated 17.02.2025 of Ld. CIT(A) and penalty order dated

16.03.2022 of Ld. AO are set aside and the matter is restored to the file

of Ld. AO for fresh decision in accordance with law after affording a fair

opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.

6 ITA No. 4094/Del/2026 Pawan Vs. ITO

allowed and the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd OCTOBER, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 23.10.2026 Reshma Naheed, Sr.P.S