GAGAN ARORA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 45(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 681/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRIPRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the 81-day delay by adopting a liberal approach. It condoned the delay and remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after hearing the Assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessee was levied a penalty of Rs. 79,93,699/- under Section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed due to an 81-day delay in filing, which the Assessee attributed to counsel's oversight and lack of malafide intent.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the 81-day delay in filing the appeal and dismissing it on technical grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRIPRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

For Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10/10/2024Pronounced: 17/10/2024

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 22/12/2023for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that an order under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been passed on 01/08/2023 by imposing penalty of Rs. 79,93,699/-. As against the order of penalty, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 22/12/2023 dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in latches of 81 days in filing the appeal. As against the Page 1 of 3 appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

3.

None appeared for the Assessee, notices sent by the registry were duly served on the Assessee, thus considering the above facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to decide the present appeal on hearing the ld. DR after verifying the material available on record.

4.

Heard the Ld. DR and verified the material available on record. Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal filed by the Assessee, observed that the Assessee has not explained the sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 81 days. The Assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the delay in filing of appeal due to “non-communication and oversight on the part of the appellant counsel”. The appeal could not be filed on time and further contended the Assessee had no malafide intention in not filing the appeal on time, thus, sought for condoning the delay.

5.

In our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay of 81 days for the reasons stated by the Assessee by adopting liberal approach while condoning the delay and should have decided the appeal on its merit. Therefore, we condoned delay of 81 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merit in accordance with the law after hearing the Assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →