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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 64 days in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and genuine, especially since the Revenue's representative did not object. The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide them on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This decision was made because both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response. Consequently, the penalty appeals were also allowed, and the penalties levied by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) were quashed, as the foundation for their levy would not survive. The AO was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if required. The quantum appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the penalty appeals were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bablu Gupta, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Guwahati Bench for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 and 2014-15. These appeals were against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)), dated 13.08.2025. The penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) via orders dated 22.09.2022 and 12.09.2022. The assessee's appeals before the ITAT were filed with a delay of 64 days. The assessment orders and the appellate orders were passed ex-parte as the assessee failed to respond to notices from both the AO and the Ld. CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should condone the delay of 64 days in filing the assessee's appeals, considering the reasons provided by the assessee's counsel and the lack of objection from the Revenue's representative. 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment orders and appellate orders passed due to the assessee's non-response warrant restoration to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Assessee's contentions: The assessee's counsel explained the reason for the delay in filing the appeals, which the Tribunal found to be bonafide and genuine. The assessee also did not respond to opportunities granted by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue's representative (DR) did not raise any objection to the condonation of the delay.

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 →