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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 64 days in filing the appeals, finding the reason for the delay to be bonafide and genuine, especially since the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with a direction to decide them on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This decision was based on the principle that the ends of justice would be better served by allowing the assessee to present their case. Consequently, the penalty appeals were also allowed. The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals were restored, the very foundation for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive, and thus the penalty orders stood quashed. The Assessing Officer was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if required. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes in respect of quantum and allowed in respect of penalties.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bablu Gupta, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Guwahati Bench against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) 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 hearing notices. Similarly, the NFAC also passed appellate orders ex-parte as the assessee did not appear before it despite opportunities. The appeals under challenge pertain to penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO and confirmed by the NFAC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 64 days in filing the appeals should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation and the Revenue's lack of objection. (Question of fact) 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders, passed due to the assessee's non-appearance, warrant restoration to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for a decision on merits. (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness) 3. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, based on ex-parte assessment orders, should be quashed if the quantum appeals are restored. (Question of law, concerning the consequential effect of quashing the assessment order on penalty proceedings) Assessee's contentions: The assessee's counsel explained the reason for the delay in filing the appeals. The assessee's failure to appear before the AO and CIT(A) led to ex-parte orders. The assessee sought restoration of the appeals to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue's Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay. No specific arguments were recorded for the Revenue regarding the merits of the ex-parte orders or the penalty proceedings.

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

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 →