S K ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 60(5), DELHI

Both the appeals filed by the single Assessee, aggrieved by the orders of Ld. CIT(A) dated 21/05/2024. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessee ex-parte by confirming the orders of penalty dated 15/09/2023 imposed u/s 271F and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) respectively.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) committed error in not condoning the delay of 173 days, though the Assessee has Page 1 of 4 & 3122 /Del/2024 S K Enterprises, Delhi shown sufficient caused for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, Ld. AR sought for allowing the appeal by condoning the delay and prayed for restoring the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

Per contra, Ld. DR relying on the orders of lower authorities sought for dismissal of the appeal.

We have heard the parties and perused the material. Aggrieved by the order of the penalties, the Assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 173 days. The Assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the counsel who was dealing with all the tax and audit matters, not well and having treatment for depression, anxiety and minute dementia. The Assessee was not aware of passing the ex parte penalty order under Section 271F as well as 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessee came to know regarding passing of the orders of penalty only in the month of February, 2024 when the department informed that the complaint will be filed against the Assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed the same.