Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is an illiterate farmer who failed to file an Income Tax Return (ITR) for AY 2010-11. The assessment was completed ex-parte, and a penalty was imposed under Section 271F for non-filing of the ITR. The assessee claims to have received the CIT(A) order late and filed the appeal with a delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's illiteracy and circumstances. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, as the initial proceedings were ex-parte.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under Section 271F for non-filing of ITR is sustainable when the assessment was completed ex-parte and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Also, whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
271F, 144, 147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 837/JP/2025
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa a Jh xxu Xkks;y ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 837/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Shri Lala Ram Bagra The ITO Vs. V/P 2639, Nahar Bhadharna, Amer Ward 7(4) Jaipur Jaipur – 302 032 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BBVPB 6774 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri R.A. Verma, ITP jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 11/08/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 08 /09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated -5-03-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.
‘’1. The order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 5-03-2025 is bad in law.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in approving the AO’s penalty order dated 23-05- SHRI LALA RAM BAGRA VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR 2017 passed u/s 271F of the Act as ITAT has set aside the CIT(A)’s order dated 7-10-2024 against quantum order passed by the AO.’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 355 days in filing the appeal before ITAT for which the assessee himself has filed an application dated 02-06-2025 for condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee had not received the copy of the order of ld. CIT(A) (supra) as to the penalty confirmed by him. He submitted that he is an illiterate and poor farmer who has no knowledge about the income tax laws. He further submitted that the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) dated 5-03-2024 was received from I T Portal Account on 20-05-2025 and thus he filed the appeal on 21-05-2025 before ITAT. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing the above facts of the case.
2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR did not controvert to the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee and submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fir and proper in the case.
2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and from the submissions of the assessee, the Bench feels that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not filling the appeal in time and therefore, we condone the delay by considering the affidavit of the assessee Shri Lala Ram SHRI LALA RAM BAGRA VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR Bagra. Hence, the delay so made by the assessee in filing the appeal before us is condoned. 3.1 Apropos to grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by confirming the penalty of Rs.5,000/- levied u/s 271F of the Act. The narration so made by the ld.CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’1. The ground nos.1,2 & 5 are against levy of penalty u/s 271F of Rs.5,000/- for not filing the ITR for the A.Y. 2010-11 on the ground that he did not have taxable income. It is pertinent to note that assessment in this case was completed ex parte u/s 144 r.w.s 147 due to non-cooperation of the assessee.
2. The assessment was completed by the AO u/s 144/147 on 29.11.2016 with assessed income of Rs. 39,12,890 and penalty was initiated u/s 271F for not filing the ITR. As the AO got the information that the assessee sold his agricultural land on 12.10.2009 & Capital gains thereon was not declared by him. The submission made by the assessee is not acceptable. The assessee had taxable income under the head Long term Capital Gains. The case was rightly reopened u/s 147 rws 148. The assessee did not file ITR in response to notice u/s 148 too. Therefore, penalty of Rs.5000 levied u/s 271F is confirmed. The grounds 1.2 & 5 are dismissed.
3. The Ground nos. 3 and 4 are general in nature and hence does not require any separate adjudication.’’ SHRI LALA RAM BAGRA VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F of the Act and he has passed an ex-parte order without providing opportunity of hearing to the assesse. To this effect the assessee Shri Lal Ram himself filed the statement of facts giving the details of the case as under:-
STATEMENT OF FACTS ‘’In the above case the assessment was completed by the AO u/s 144/147 on dated 29/11/2016 with assessed income of Rs. 39,12,890/- and penalty was initiated u/s 271F on dated 29/11/2016 due to not file the return of income. As AO got the information that the assessee sold his agricultural land on dated 12/10/2009 and capital gain thereon was not declared by him. Notice u/s 148 was issued and assessment was completed u/s 144/147 of the Act without providing opportunity to the assessee. Thereafter penalty u/s 271F was also imposed of Rs. 5000/- by passing the order dated 23/05/2017 without giving an opportunity of being heard. As assessment order and penalty order both were bad in law and penalty imposed of Rs. 5000/- vide order dt.23/05/17 is also not sustainable as per law as assessee was not having taxable income in AY 2010-11 and therefore, not liable to file return of income and penalty cannot be imposed. Now the ITAT has set aside the CIT(A)'s order dated 07/10/2024 to the AO against quantum order passed by the AO and as the penalty u/s 271F is consequential and therefore, CIT(A)'s order dated 05/03/2024 may please be set aside to the AO.
3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is not required to repeat the facts of the case as the assessee himself has narrated the entire episode of the case. However, it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
3.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law.
SHRI LALA RAM BAGRA VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 08/09/2025.