BALBIR SINGH ,ALWAR vs. ASSISTANT CIRCLE OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, ALWAR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 734/JP/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15
Sh. Balbir Singh
A-88, Near BSNL Exchange,
Circle-02,
Alwar
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AUQPS 2392 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &
Sh. Saurav Harsh, Adv.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing
: 12/02/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 24/02/2025
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
By way of present appeal, the assessee challenges the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 06/12/2023 [ for short
CIT(A)] which was for the assessment year 2014-15. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the penalty order
2
Sh. Balbir Singh , Alwar vs. ACIT dated 25.03.2019 passed under section 271D/250/254 of the Income Tax
Act, [ for short “AO”] by ACIT, Circle-02, Alwar.
At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 108 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: Application for condonation of delay u/s 253(5) of the I.T. Act. 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation Act in filing of appeal
Hon'ble Sir(s),
The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay of 108 days in the filling of Appeal for the following reason:
That the Id. CIT (Appeals) passed his order on 06.12.2023 which was served upon the email Id. ankushchoudhary07@gmail.com which is belongs to the Son of the assessee appellant Shri Ankush Choudhary.
That Shri Ankush Choudhary is suffering from mental trauma because of one accident happened in the family in which the 3-Year-old child of Shri Ankush 5. That subsequently, the assessee after came to the knowledge of the order passed by the Id. CIT(A) without any further delay, filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal with delay of 108 days.
An Affidavit of assessee appellant is duly sworn in this regard is also enclosed herewith.
With this background, we request your honour to take stock of the situation in totality, take a lenient and human approach towards the humble assessee appellant as the delay was not intentional and due to unavoidable circumstances.
That in these circumstances we request your honor's to kindly condone the delay and oblige.
During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay. She stated that the assessee even did not represent his case before the ld. CIT(A) even after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and therefore, the assessee cannot be afford more leniency.
We have heard the contention of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench noted that in this case ld. CIT (Appeals) passed his order on 06.12.2023 which was served upon the email Id. ankushchoudhary07@gmail.com which was belongs to the Son of the assessee appellant Shri Ankush Choudhary. The assessee stated that Shri Ankush Choudhary is suffering from mental trauma because of one
4
Sh. Balbir Singh , Alwar vs. ACIT accident happened in the family in which the 3-Year-old child of Shri
Ankush Choudhary died and Shri Ankush Choudhary Son of assessee appellant went into the Mental Trauma. That assessee appellant not well aware about the Income tax provision and online proceeding and also has no email account therefore the in the income tax portal the email which is provided is belongs to his son and due to the accident as stated above, his son has not seen any email and therefore the order dated 06.12.2023 was not communicated to the assessee appellant. That assessee appellant received the outstanding demand notice from the income tax department on 04.05.2024 through post and only then the knowledge of passing the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 came to the knowledge of the assessee appellant and thereby immediately the appeal was filed. In support of the contention so raised assessee filed an affidavit also. Considering the fact that the assessee was prevented with sufficient cause for not filling the appeal in time and therefore, the same is condone. Thus the delay of 108
days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land
5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT in passing the ex-parte and confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- u/s 271D imposed by the ld. assessing officer.”
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing.”
Further, in this appeal, the assessee has raised additional ground praying there to admit the same as it is pure technical and does not require any further finding of facts : - 1. That in the law the impugned penalty order passed u/s 271D of the Act is without juri iction as the same has been passed by the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax whereas as per section 271D(2) the same could have been levied by ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax only which makes the impugned order illegal, void-ab-initio, bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
As the above ground being technical in nature we admit the same for considering while dealing with the appeal of the assessee.
Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an Individual and engaged in the business of hotel and agricultural activities. For the assessment year 2014-15 while completing the assessment proceeding ld. AO noted that the assessee has accepted cash loan for an amount of Rs. 1.00 crore therefore, he was subjected to 6 Sh. Balbir Singh , Alwar vs. ACIT proceeding u/s. 271D of the Act. In that proceeding assessee explained that the amount of Rs. 1.00 crore received from Smt. Maya Devi was not a loan but it was an advance against the sale of land vide registered agreement. In that penalty proceeding ld. AO considered that agreement as an afterthought as the stamp paper was old and it was an attempt to create evidence that the transaction is for sale of property and not as a loan. Consequently, penalty of Rs. 1.00 crore was levied u/s. 271D of the Act vide order dated 17.05.2017. That order for levy of penalty was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) who has considered the submission of the assessee and thereby directed to delete that penalty of Rs. 1.00 crore. Revenue challenged that order of ld. CIT(A) before the ITAT. The co-ordinate bench considering the rivial contention set aside the order by observing as under: 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on the record. The Assessing Officer has observed that the amount of Rs. 1.00 crore received by the assessee from Smt. Maya Devi was a loan and the alleged agreement produced by the assessee is nothing but an afterthought attempting to create an evidence to give the colour of the transaction of loan as advance against the sale of the property. Thus, the Assessing Officer has treated the said amount as loan in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act and consequently imposed the penalty U/s 271D of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has accepted the transaction as advance received against the sale of property by accepting the agreement to sell notarized on 20/6/2013. Except the agreement in question which is claimed to have been notarized and not a registered agreement there is no other document in support of the claim that the amount was received as an advance against the sale of property. The only evidence which can be independently verified is the receipt of payment of Rs. 50/- in the office of the Sub