DESH RAM,MUMTAJPUR vs. A.O, FACELESS ASSESSMENT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the 439-day delay, noting the assessee's condonation petition and citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. It further deleted the Rs. 10,000/- penalty, attributing the non-cooperation to potential communication gaps during the COVID pandemic outbreak.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) for AY 2017-18, facing a 439-day delay in filing the appeal which the CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone. The penalty was for non-response to a notice under Section 142(1) during the COVID pandemic period.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order under Section 272A(1)(d) should be condoned, and if the penalty itself was justified considering the non-response to a Section 142(1) notice during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064997800(1), dated 20.05.2024, involving proceedings under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing at the outset that the CIT(A)/NFAC herein has refused to condone 439 days’ delay in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 08.01.2024 against penalty order passed on 26.09.2022 under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The Revenue vehemently argues that not only the assessee had failed to respond to the Assessing Officer’s notice dated 08.02.2022 during scrutiny but also, he could not tender any justifiable explanation in support of the averments in the lower appellate proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant twin arguments. We note first of all that the assessee had indeed filed its condonation petition whose contents have been duly reproduced in the lower appellate discussion at page 2 right from para 3.4 onwards on account of the circumstances beyond his control. We thus treat it as a fit case to condone the impugned delay in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). The outcome would be hardly any different on mertis as well as the assessee’s alleged non- cooperation had taken place during covid pandemic outbreak period as the date of notice herein under section 142(1) is 2 | P a g e 18.02.2022, and therefore, the possibility of some communication gaps on various levels could not be altogether ruled out.
Be that as it may, we treat it as a fit case to delete Rs.10,000/- penalty in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
More judgments on Section 272A(1)(d)
- Vipulbhai Keharbhai Kukadiya, Bhavnagar vs The Income Tax Office, Ward 1(9) Bhavnagar…ITA 2465/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Vipulbhai Keharbhai Kukadiya, Bhavnagar vs The Income Tax Office, Ward 1(9) Bhavnagar…ITA 2464/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Alkeshbhai Chimanbhai Barot, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 1(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 178/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Alkeshbhai Chimanbhai Barot, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 177/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026