RAJRSHI SHAHU NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT KURUNDWAD,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

Registry has informed that there is delay of 930 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal. From going through the averments made in the condonation application, I Assessee by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Respondent by : Shri Manoj Tripathi (through virtual) Date of hearing : 08.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.09.2025 Rajrshi Shahu Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Kurundwad

After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the condonation application, I am satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time. I note that the assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. I therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 4. The sole grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.40,000/- levied u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act @ Rs.10,000/- for each non-appearance on the dates of hearing fixed during the course of penalty proceedings.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the default was not wilful on the part of the assessee and entire details were furnished before the ld. Assessing Officer and assessment has been concluded u/s.143(3) of the Act. He Rajrshi Shahu Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Kurundwad

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. Assessee through this appeal has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.40,000/- levied u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance to the notices u/s.143(3) fixed on 14.07.2021 and remaining three notices u/s.142(1) fixing the dates of hearing on 16.12.2021, 14.02.2022 and 28.02.2022. From the perusal of the dates of notices, I find that all these notices were issued during covid-19 pandemic outbreak period and there were restrictions on the movement of general public. Almost two years period have been removed out of the limitation period by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC) considering the difficulties faced by the litigants. The assessee has been non-compliant before the ld. Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) and even the appeal preferred this Tribunal with a delay of 930 days. However, so far as issuing notices u/s.142(1) of the Act by the ld. Assessing Officer during the penalty proceedings are concerned, they all fell during covid-19 pandemic outbreak period which prevailed across the country. Therefore, assessee deserves immunity from levy of impugned penalty in view of section 273B of the Act. I Rajrshi Shahu Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Kurundwad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

अपीलाथ / The Assessee. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune.

गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,