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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2013-143 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, and noting the absence of any objection from the Revenue. Regarding the ex-parte orders, the Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be better served by restoring the appeals to the file of the NFAC. Consequently, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the NFAC to decide the matters on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) were quashed as the foundation for their levy would not survive with the restoration of the quantum appeals. The AO was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if required. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bablu Gupta, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 and 2014-15. These appeals were filed with a delay of 64 days. The original assessment orders for both AYs were passed ex-parte by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. Similarly, the appellate orders from the NFAC were also passed ex-parte as the assessee did not appear before the appellate authority. Penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were levied by the AO and confirmed by the NFAC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the absence of objection from the Revenue. This issue turns on the principles of condonation of delay under the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued for condonation based on bonafide and genuine reasons. The Revenue did not raise any objection. 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. This issue concerns the procedural fairness and the right to be heard under the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that due to ex-parte proceedings, justice was not served. The Revenue did not present its arguments on this point.

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

For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, DR
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 →