RAVINDRA PATIDAR,RUNJI, GAUTAMPURA vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

The assessee has filed the present appeal Under Section

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the

“Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of

Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the

order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/

1057550133(1) dated 31.10.2023 of Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250

of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned

order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18 and the

Page 1 of 8

Rvindra Patidar ITA No. 463/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18

corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to

31.03.2017.

2A. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 145 days in

preferring the present appeal. “Impugned order” is dated

31.10.2023. In Form No.36 date of service of order is 31.10.2023.

The instant appeal was e-filed on 23.05.2024. Condonation of

delay application states that the assessee is an agriculturist and

illiterate person. The assessee is not well conversant with the

latest technological advancements and was unable to receive the

“impugned order” electronically. Upon consultation with

present AR the assessee came to know of passing of “impugned

order” on or about 15.05.2024. An affidavit in support of COD is

placed on record. We have perused the COD application along

with affidavit in support. Upon hearing both Ld. AR and Ld. DR

we are of the considered view that the assessee has shown

sufficient cause which is bonafide. We accordingly condone the

delay. Appeal admitted and taken up for hearing.

Page 2 of 8

Rvindra Patidar ITA No. 463/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18

2.1 That as and by way of an order u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act a

penalty of Rs.40,000/- for each non compliance to the notice(s)

u/s 142(1) issued on 29.05.2019, 03.07.2019, 26.08.2019 and

24.10.2019 was imposed on the assessee vide order bearing No.

ITBA/PNL/F/272A(1)(d)2021-22/1039339502(1) dated

03.02.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned

penalty order”.

2.2 That the assessee’s quantum assessment was completed

u/s 144 of the Act on 09.12.2019 wherein addition of

Rs.10,70,000/- u/s 69A of the Act was made. The said

“quantum assessment order” dated 09.12.2019 stands set

aside by CIT(A) order bearing No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-

25/1073777458(1) dated 27.02.2025 wherein the assessment

order dated 09.12.2019 is set aside to the file of Ld. A.O for

framing fresh assessment.

2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned

penalty order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld.

Page 3 of 8

Rvindra Patidar ITA No. 463/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18

CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the first

appeal of the assessee on reasons and grounds specified therein.

2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order”

has filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal and has raised

following grounds of appeal against the “impugned order” which

are as under:-

“1. That, the Ld. CIT-A erred to sustain the penalty levied by the Ld. AO of Rs. 40,000/- U/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the appellant had reasonable cause for not replying to the notices issued U/s 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied is liable to be deleted under the provisions of section 273B of the Act. 2. That, without prejudice to the above levying penalty of Rs. 10.000/- per notice issued U/s 142(1) of the Act is highly excessive and unreasonable. 3. That, the appellant craves leave to add alter any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing”.

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on

14.05.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of assessee

appeared before us and interalia contended that as and by way of

an quantum assessment order bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/144/

2019-20/1021946050(1) dated 09.12.2019 passed u/s 144 of the

Act assessee’s total assessed income was computed at

Page 4 of 8

Rvindra Patidar ITA No. 463/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18

Rs.10,70,000/-. However “quantum assessment order” stand set aside by 1st appellate order of CIT(A) dated 27.02.2025 (supra).

That in view of this factual position the “impugned order” which

is on penalty too fails. It was clarified to us that though

quantum assessment proceedings and the penalty proceedings

are two separate proceedings but the core issue herein is one of

non compliances of notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the Act for which the

assessee being a farmer and a non technical person in rural area

has shown a cause of being unaware of any tax proceeding

procedures which “perse” is required to be believed in. The Ld.

AR prayed for setting aside of the “impugned order”. The Ld. DR

for and on behalf of the revenue interalia submitted before us

that while it is true that quantum assessment proceedings and

penalty proceedings are separate and independent of each other,

the impact of quantum should not affect penalty order. Further

in the instant case these are violations of Section 142(1) notices(s)

on more than four occasions which perse is violation in itself.

If each and every assessee takes a plea of being not aware of tax

proceedings procedures, then the Section 142(1) and it’s

compliances and violations too would become meaningless and

Page 5 of 8

Rvindra Patidar ITA No. 463/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18

redundant. Further fiscal stature must be construed strictly and

there is no room of any bonafide or good intentions. The Ld. DR

finally prayed that “impugned order” should be upheld.

4.1 We now have to adjudge and adjudicate the present appeal

filed by the revenue on basis of the records of the case and

contentions canvassed before us during the course of hearing. In

brief we have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietery of

the “impugned order”.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case as

presented to this tribunal by both Ld. AR and Ld. DR to

determine the legality, validity of the “Impugned Order” basis

law and by following due process of law.

4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon

examining the contentions of both Ld. AR and Ld. DR are of the

considered view that in all total four notice(s) were issued to the

assessee u/s 142(1) of the Act for compliance but none were

complied with. We notice that u/s 272A(1)(d) if any person

fails to comply with a notice under Sub Section (1) of Section

Page 6 of 8

Rvindra Patidar ITA No. 463/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18

142 he shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of Ten Thousand

Rupees for each such default or failure. We notice and observe

that admittedly there is a failure and default on four occasions of

preceding quantum assessment order (supra). We taking into

consideration entire gamut of the case and the peculiar facts

and circumstances of the case including the fact that

assessee is an agriculturist and is not technically well versed

with procedural aspect of tax matters, residing in rural area of

India are of the considered opinion that since the matter on

quantum assessment is relegated back to Ld. A.O by Ld. CIT(A)

(supra), we feel that now at least the assessee would purge the

violations which he had done on earlier occasions as quantum

assessment proceedings would re-commence afresh on denovo

basis. We therefore are of the considered opinion that by virtue

of power conferred upon us in view of Section 254/273B of the

Act wherein this Tribunal is empowered to pass orders as it

think fit we deem it fit proper and appropriate that in order to

meet ends of justice that the “impugned order” should be set

Accordingly we set aside the “impugned order” with aside.

admonition to the assessee that in future he should not repeat

Page 7 of 8

Rvindra Patidar ITA No. 463/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18

such glaring mistake which in law are mandatory for one and all.

We make it clear that this order should not be treated as binding

precedent so as to give licence to the other assessee’s to flout the

Section 142(1) actions of department, as that would not be

against the interest of tax administration.

5.1 In the premises impugned order is set aside and penalty

imposed are deleted.

5.2 In result appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 16.05.2025.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore िदनांक/ Dated : 16/05/2025 Dev/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 8 of 8