DESH RAM,MUMTAJPUR vs. A.O, FACELESS ASSESSMENT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2980/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 April 2025Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

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?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 17.04.2025Pronounced: 17.04.2025
1.

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’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

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.

4.

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)

All 1,125 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →