VASUDHA PREMKUMAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. AO, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3304/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 December 2024AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal, noting the error in uploading incorrect documents and with no objection from the Departmental Representative, dismissed both the application for condonation of delay and the appeal as withdrawn, deeming them infructuous. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order issued under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appellant, however, erroneously uploaded the penalty order instead of the quantum assessment order and the appellate order, stating these were unavailable at the time of filing.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed with incorrect supporting documents (penalty order instead of quantum assessment and appellate orders) can be sustained or should be dismissed as infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT (D.R.)
Hearing: 12.12.2024Pronounced: 12.12.2024

(Assessment Year : 2012-13) Vasudha Premkumar Vs. AO Sharma Ward – 59(2), 191/2B, Windermere, Delhi – 110 002 off Link Road, Oshiwara, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 053 PAN : AMFPS 0916 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Subhash Chhajed, C.A. Respondent by Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT (D.R.) Date of Hearing 12.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

1.

The application for condonation of delay in filing appeal with appeal filed by assessee is against the order dated 23.09.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of penalty order dated 04.09.2021 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld.AO’) under section 271(1)(c) of the Vasudha Premkumar Sharma vs. AO A.Y. 2012-13 Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee by referring to submission dated 13.11.2024 submitted that appellant/assessee erroneously uploaded appeal by attaching penalty order instead of quantum assessment order and appellate order as the same were not available. So, the appeal may be treated as withdrawn or may be dismissed as infructuous.

3.

Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue had no objection to the submission.

4.

From examination of record in light of above submissions, it is crystal clear that assessee/appellant submitted an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal and appeal containing copy of order dated 23.09.2023 by NFAC and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) dated 04.09.2021. Appellant/assessee in submission dated 13.11.2024 has mentioned that the appeal has been erroneously uploaded on the portal by attaching penalty order instead of quantum assessment order and appellate order. The appeal may be treated as withdrawn or dismissed as infructuous. In view of above material facts, application for condonation of delay in filing appeal and appeal of assessee are dismissed as withdrawn being infructuous.

Vasudha Premkumar Sharma vs. AO A.Y. 2012-13 5. The assessee shall be at liberty to file fresh appeal in accordance with law as and when consider expedient.

6.

In the result, application for condonation of delay in filing appeal and appeal of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn being infructuous. Order was pronounced in the open court on 12th December, 2024

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →