SACHIN CHAWLA LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) , LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 206/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 July 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles laid down by the Supreme Court. It set aside the quantum appeal to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a de novo assessment, noting the original assessment was on a best judgment basis. Consequently, the penalty appeal was also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the re-assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals (one against quantum addition and another against penalty under Section 271AAC) for AY 2017-18, both with significant delays of 283 and 130 days respectively. The assessee sought condonation, explaining that notices were sent to an email managed by their accountant, leading to the delay. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed these appeals due to the delay.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the condonation of delay in filing the appeals and the sustainability of the quantum addition and consequential penalty assessed on a best judgment basis.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC

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, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.205/CHANDI/2025
ITA No.206/CHANDI/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. By way of these appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, the assessee assails confirmation of quantum addition and consequential levy of penalty u/s 271AAC. The registry has noted delay of 283 days in quantum appeal and delay of 130 days in penalty appeal ITA No.206/Chandi/2025. The condonation of delay has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by an affidavit of the accountant of the assessee wherein it has been stated that the notices have been issued on email which was being operated by the accountant. The Ld. AR also stated that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals for want of condonation of delay which happened due to same very reasons. In this background, Ld. AR sought adjudication of appeals on merits. The same has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

2.

Keeping in mind the guiding principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123) with respect to delay, we condone the delay before Tribunal as well as before Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessment has been framed on best judgment basis, the quantum appeal is set aside to the file of Ld. AO for de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The levy of penalty is consequential in nature and therefore, the same is also restored back to Ld. AO for fresh adjudication considering the quantum assessment.

3.

Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23-07-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 23-07-2025.

More judgments on Section 271AAC

All 982 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →