GANPAT SINGH,PIPLANI vs. ITO 3(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 158/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 November 2025AY 2010-20114 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It reasoned that Section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after the prescribed time. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, the Tribunal emphasized preferring substantial justice over technical considerations and adopting a justice-oriented approach. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal held that where successive notices are issued by the AO seeking the same information, it does not multiply the default but constitutes a single default. This view is supported by various decisions, including a recent one by the ITAT, Pune Bench. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty for the first non-compliance and deleted the penalty for subsequent non-compliances. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was restricted to one default, confirming a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and deleting the remaining Rs. 40,000/-. The appeal was partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ganpat Singh, an individual engaged in agriculture, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, against an order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from a penalty order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the ITO-3(1), Bhopal, under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was imposed for non-compliance with five successive notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. The appeal was filed belatedly. The assessee's AR submitted that the delay was due to the assessee's ailing condition and financial constraints, and prayed for condonation. The Revenue's DR left the matter to the discretion of the bench. The ITAT decided to condone the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the assessee's ailing condition and financial constraints, and in light of Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the principle of substantial justice. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was unintentional, caused by ill health and financial hardship, and that no benefit was derived from the delay. The assessee prayed for condonation to impart substantial justice, citing the meritorious nature of the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue noted the assessee's non-compliance in all proceedings but left the decision on condonation to the bench, considering the assessee's stated condition. 2. Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with five successive notices under Section 142(1) should be treated as a single default or five separate defaults, and if it should be restricted to Rs. 10,000/-. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that since all five notices sought the same information regarding the sale of land, the non-compliance should be construed as a single failure, and the penalty should be restricted to Rs. 10,000/-. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 253(5),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Appellant: Ms. Saniya Farhaz Menon, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.11.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 21.03.2022 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 14.06.2018 passed by ITO-3(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], the assessee has filed this appeal.

2.

This appeal is belatedly filed after expiry of statutory time period. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee is an individual engaged in agriculture. She submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation- application/affidavit giving reason of delay and praying for condonation.

Page 1 of 4 – A.Y. 2010-11 Referring to contents of application/affidavit, she submitted that the assessee is passing through ailing condition and owing to same, this appeal could not have been filed in time. She submitted that there is no deliberate reason or malafide intention to make delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit by delayed filing. She submitted that the assessee is financially at ground level and does not have any means to pay the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by AO u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliances of the notices issued u/s 142(1). With folded hands on behalf of assessee, she prayed that this Court should take a very judicious view and considering the ailing condition of assessee and meritorious nature of appeal, condone delay to impart substantial justice. Ld. DR for Revenue submitted that the assessee had remained non-compliant in all proceedings, viz. the assessment-proceeding, penalty-proceeding and first appellate proceeding.

Therefore, the delay should not have been condoned but, however, he left the matter for the wisdom of bench considering the ailing and financially constrained condition of assessee as informed by Ld. AR in open court. We have considered the submission and repeat emphasis made by Ld. AR in open court narrating the ailing condition of assessee which has led to delayed filing of present appeal coupled with her submission that the assessee is finally much weaker. Accordingly, we are inclined to take a liberal view in the matter of section 253(5) of the Act which empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst.

Page 2 of 4 – A.Y. 2010-11 Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever “substantial justice” and “technical considerations” are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. In the very same decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed “It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” Therefore, we take condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.

3.

The assessee in present case is aggrieved by a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed for non-compliances of five (5) successive notices issued by AO u/s 142(1). Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the five notices dated 28.06.2017, 10.08.2017, 03.10.2017, 13.11.2017 and 12.12.2017 were issued by AO and in response to one notice dated 10.08.2017, CA Piyush Agarwal attended on behalf of assessee. Further, Ld. AR also submitted that by means of all those five (5) notices, the AO’s query was qua the sale of land made by assessee. Therefore, the non-compliances of all five notices should be construed as a single failure and the penalty should be restricted to Rs. 10,000/- only. We find merit in the contention of the Ld. AR for the assessee that where the notices have been issued by the AO, one after another, seeking the same information, it will not multiply the default and it would constitute a single default. This proposition is supported by plethora of decisions including the recent decision dated 14.10.2025 given by ITAT, Pune Bench in Devraj Vishwasrao Jadhav Vs. ITO, Satara,

Page 3 of 4 – A.Y. 2010-11 . Accordingly, in the light of same and also considering the provisions of section 273B of the Act, we are of the view that the penalty for first non-compliance deserves to be confirmed and for the subsequent non-compliances penalty deserves to be deleted. We therefore restrict the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act to one default as against five defaults treated by Ld. AO. Accordingly, we confirm penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and rest of the penalty of Rs. 40,000/- is deleted.

4.

Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 28/11/2025

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →