Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, M/s. Air Wind Green Energy Limited, was subjected to assessment for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee appealed against the penalty order, but the appeal was filed with a delay of 355 days.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the quantum assessment itself was restored for de novo consideration, the penalty was imposed for non-compliance with notices. However, considering the overall conduct of the assessee and the restoration of the quantum matter, the Tribunal decided to delete the penalty to meet the ends of justice.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices can be deleted when the quantum assessment is restored, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
142(1), 272A(1)(d), 274, 273B, 249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
(Assessment Year: 2018-19) Air Wind Green Energy Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 110 Swaraparklane, First Floor, Income Tax, Nr. Atabhai Chowk, Bhavnagar, Circle-1, Gujarat-364002 Bhavnagar [PAN No.AANCA9739J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Varis Isani, Advocate Respondent by: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 O R D E R
PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 13.09.2025 passed for A.Y. 2018-19.
The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That, on this fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Lrd. Commissioner of Income Tax (E-Appeals) (for short "Appellate Authority") has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the grounds of the limitation by not condoning of delay, and confirming the penalty levied u/s. 272A(1)(d) Income Tax Act.
2. The Lrd. Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the appellant had a reasonable and sufficient caused for not filing the appeal within prescribed time period. Therefore, the Lrd. CIT (A) ought to have, accepted the delay condonation application and delay of 355 days caused in filing the appeal. Air Wind Green Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2018-19 - 2– 3. The Lrd. Appellate Authority has grievously erred in law dismissing the appeal filed against the order u/s. 272A(l)(d) of the Income Tax Act wherein the delay was properly explained. Hence, the order passed by the appellate authority deserves to be quashed and set aside and delay file in First Appeal and delay of 1 months cause in filing a second appeal is to be condone.
The opportunity to submit details in the case was not properly given and without giving a chance of personal hearing and to submit more details in support of the case, the order passed is in gross violation of principal of natural justice.
The order passed by the Lrd. CIT (A) is contrary to principle of natural justice and therefore liable to be quashed. The appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable caused u/s. 273B of the Income Tax Act from filing the appeal within statutory time period. The rejection of delay condonation appeal is violation of principle of natural justice. Hence, no penalty is leviable.
The Lrd. CIT (A) has erred in law in passing the order is not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the genuine and bona fide reasons for the delay of appeal.
7. The Lrd. AO ought to have condone the delay by verifying the genuine and sufficient cause faced by the appellant for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time period. The dismissing of the appeal by not considering various factual and legal grounds raised
by the appellant. Hence, the order passed is highly unjustifiable and unlawful.
8. The Lrd. Assessing Authority (NFAC) has on facts and on law grievously erred in making the penalty Rs. 10,000/- u/s. 272A(l)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
9. The Lrd. Assessing Authority has grievously erred in law in not considering reply and documents submitted by the appellant in right perspective and passed the assessment order by making the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.
10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, withdraw or amend any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s. Air Wind Green Energy Limited, was subjected to assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2018-19. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") asking for certain details and information from the assessee. However, according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to comply with the Air Wind Green Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2018-19 - 3– notices issued during the course of the assessment proceedings. As a result of such non-compliance, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 272A(1)(d) read with section 274 of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 30.01.2023. The Assessing Officer observed that despite the issuance of statutory notices and grant of opportunity, the assessee did not comply with the notices and therefore demonstrated a non-cooperative attitude during the course of assessment proceedings. Thereafter, penalty proceedings under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act were continued. In response to the penalty notice, the assessee submitted that it had filed an appeal against the assessment order and therefore requested that the penalty proceedings be kept in abeyance till the decision of the appeal. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and observed that the assessee had failed to comply with the statutory notices without reasonable cause. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had defaulted in complying with the statutory notices and therefore imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.
4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The learned CIT(Appeals) first examined the issue of limitation and observed that the penalty order was passed on 24.07.2023 and the same was served on the assessee on the same date. As per the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, the assessee was required to file the appeal on or before 24.08.2023. However, the appeal was filed only on 15.08.2024, resulting in a delay of 355 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed an application seeking Air Wind Green Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2018-19 - 4– condonation of delay stating that the notices received from the Income Tax Department were forwarded to its tax consultant who had assured that necessary action would be taken, but subsequently the consultant failed to attend to the matter and also did not inform the assessee about the passing of the penalty order. The assessee further submitted that it became aware of the penalty order only when recovery proceedings were initiated and therefore there was a delay in filing the appeal.
5. The learned CIT(Appeals), however, was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) held that the reasons cited by the assessee were primarily based on ignorance and negligence and that ignorance of law could not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In this regard, the CIT(Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (AIR 1962 SC 361) wherein it was held that condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion and that a party seeking condonation must establish sufficient cause for not approaching the court within the prescribed period of limitation. The CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee had failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause explaining the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and therefore rejected the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The CIT(Appeals) further observed that even on merits the assessee had failed to justify the non-compliance with statutory notices and therefore the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act was liable to be sustained. Air Wind Green Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2018-19 - 5– 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act has been imposed on account of alleged non-compliance with notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings. However, it has been brought to our notice that the quantum assessment itself has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration by the Tribunal. Thought this does not have a direct bearing on the issue of non- appearance in response to notice issued by the Assessing Officer, but it is observed that the assessee has been diligently following up with the Tax Authorities with respect to various matters. In view of the above legal position and considering the fact that the quantum matter itself has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, we are of the considered view that the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act may be deleted in the interests of justice and overall conduct of the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the penalty order is directed to be deleted.