Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2016-17, one concerning quantum additions made by the AO and the other regarding consequential penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee's initial appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 289-day delay, despite the assessee's claim of being an illiterate lady misguided by her ITP which led to an ex-parte order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144. The present appeal to the Tribunal had a short delay of 14 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 14-day delay in filing the present appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding quantum additions, restoring the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment, conditional on the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. Consequently, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, with liberty granted to the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after the de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; validity of quantum additions; legality of consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 271(1)(c), Section 147, Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg
"ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" के सम!। Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA Nos.1943 & 1944/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Premilaben Bhavuji Thakor The ITO बनाम/ A/67, Dwarkapuri Mafalipur Ward-3(2)(1) v/s. Dholka Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmdabad – 382 006 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AYNPT 8295 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pritesh Shah, CA Revenue by : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] of even date 28/07/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016- 2017.
In the issue is relating to the quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO), whereas, in AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
& 1944/Ahd/2025 Premilaben Bhavuji Thakor vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 2 for AY 2016-17
At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal of the assessee is time-barred by 14 days. A separate application/affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed. After considering the averments made in the said application/affidavit, the short delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3.1. It is also noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed that the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation of 289 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein, it was pleaded that the assessee was misguided by the Registered Income Tax Practitioner (ITP), who was consulted by the assessee for filing and pursuing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). That he did not pursue the matter of the assessee before the AO resulting into passing the ex-parte order by the AO u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act. That, thereafter, he even did not file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It has been pleaded that the assessee is an illiterate lady and was not aware of the income-tax proceedings and was totally dependent upon the ITP. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not get satisfied that the above reasoning given by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation.
3.2. Identical submissions have been made before me by way of filing of the affidavit of the assessee, namely, Premilaben Bhuvaji Thakor.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee be given an opportunity to present her case before the AO, however, subject to deposit a reasonable costs of Rs.5,000/-. The assessee will deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,000/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and will & 1944/Ahd/2025 Premilaben Bhavuji Thakor vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 3 submit the proof of the deposit before the AO. Subject to fulfilling of the aforesaid condition, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AOfor de novo assessment. Needless to say, that the AO will give proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present her case and furnish the requisite details/documents, thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
AY 2016-17 5. Now coming to the assessee’s appeal in relating to levy of penalty. Since I have already set aside the matter relating to the quantum addition to the file of the AO for de novo assessment, therefore, the impugned penalty order, at this stage, has no legs to stand and, therefore, the consequential penalty levied by the AO is ordered to be deleted at this juncture. However, the AO will be at liberty to initiate afresh penalty proceedings, if he deems so fit, during the course of afresh, set aside the assessment proceedings as ordered above.
With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee in is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, whereas, the is hereby allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09/01/2026. ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 09/01/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS & 1944/Ahd/2025 Premilaben Bhavuji Thakor vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 4