BABLU GUPTA,GUWAHATI vs. ITO-W-1(1), GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 10/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 64-day delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and genuine, with no objection raised by the Revenue. Regarding the ex-parte orders, the ITAT held that the ends of justice would be served by restoring the appeals to the file of the NFAC. The appeals were consequently restored to the NFAC with a direction to decide them on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The quantum appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. Consequently, the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) were quashed, as the very foundation for their levy would not survive. The AO was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if required. The penalty appeals were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bablu Gupta, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appeals were filed 64 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The ITAT noted that the assessments were framed ex-parte by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. Similarly, the assessee did not appear before the NFAC, leading to ex-parte appellate orders. Penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also levied by the AO and confirmed by the NFAC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee should be condoned, considering the reasons provided. The assessee argued for condonation due to bonafide and genuine reasons. The Revenue did not object to the condonation. 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders should be set aside and the matters restored to the file of the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee contended that due to non-compliance, the orders were passed ex-parte. The Revenue did not present arguments on this issue. 3. Whether the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) should be quashed, given that the quantum assessments were ex-parte. The assessee implicitly argued for quashing as the foundation for penalty would not survive. The Revenue did not present arguments on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GAUHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

Before: SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

Hearing: 13.03.2026Pronounced: 13.03.2026
1.

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”]even dated 13.08.2025 for the AYs2013-14& 2014-15. The penalties were levied 271(1)(c) of the Act vide orders dated 22.09.2022 & 12.09.2022.

2.

At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation by 64 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, 8/GTY/2026 & 10/GTY/2026 4. Since, we have already restored the assessment orders while adjudicating the quantum appeal of the assessee in & 09/GTY/2026 supra , therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) would also stand quashed as the very foundation of levy of penalty in the case of the assessee would not mo survive. Further, the ld. AO is given the liberty to re- initiate the penalty proceedings afresh, if required. The appeals are allowed.

Order pronounced on 13.03.2026.

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 →