RAGHAV ADITYA CHITS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13, NEW DELH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3254/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 February 2026AY 2012-13Bench: Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd.VsACIT, Circle-13C/o P N Chawla, AdvocateB-V, Vandhana-11Tolstoy MargNew Delhi- 01(APPELLANT)PAN No.AADCR5782N(RESPONDENT)Assessee Represented by :NoneDepartment Represented by :Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansasra,Sr. DRDate of Hearing: 02.02.2026Date of Pronouncement:02.02.2026ORDERPER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]:The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee againstthe orders dated21.02.2018, by Ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi, u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) and there could be valid reasons for non-response, such as reliance on a tax advisor. The Tribunal found that the AO had not sufficiently established that the assessee was actually served with the notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was preferred against an order confirming a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was levied due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices under Section 142(1) on various occasions.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was warranted due to non-response to notices, when the assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte and service of notice was not conclusively proven.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansasra,Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.02.2026Pronounced: 02.02.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]: The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assesseeagainst the orders dated21.02.2018, by Ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi, u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. None appeared from the assessee side therefore, we decided to proceed ahead ex-parte with the assistance of the ld DR. We heard the Ld. DR at length and perused the case record.

1 | P a g e 3254_DEL_2018_Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt Ltd 3. The sole issue for consideration is the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The penalty was levied on the assessee on account of the fact that the assesee did not respond to notice u/s 142(1) on various occasions. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty on account on non- compliance of the AR.

4.

We find that the assessee’s appeal against the penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) ex-parte. We are of the considered view that there could be several grounds for non-response of the assesseesuch as dependency on a tax advisor who failed to provide necessary guidance. We find that though the assessee officer has mentioned various opportunities afforded to the assessee for submitting explanation, he has not mentioned that the assessee was actually served with such notices or the assessee was served with such notices.

5.

Considering the factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in the instant case, is not warranted. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(b).

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 →