Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, legal heir of Late Shri Amrik Singh, filed appeals against penalty orders under sections 271D and 271(1)(c) for AY 2014-15. These appeals were initially dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to significant delays of 1670 and 2098 days. The assessee explained the delays were due to the death of the original assessee on 28.01.2018, subsequent change of residence, and the legal heir's lack of familiarity with income tax proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays for both appeals, acknowledging the genuine reasons provided by the legal heir in the interest of substantial justice. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the initial delays and restored both appeals (ITA No. 1750/Del/2023 and ITA No. 1751/Del/2023) to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law.
Key Issues
Condonation of significant delay in filing appeals against penalty orders under Section 271D and Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the death of the original assessee and subsequent change of address and the legal heir's unfamiliarity with tax proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 271D, Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1750 & 1751/Del/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamalpreet Singh Vs. ITO, (legal heir of Late Shri Ward-1(5), Amrik Singh) Ghaziabad Flat No. 401, Tower No. 5, Orange County, Ahinsa Khand-1, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:ACHPS9677E Assessee by : Mr. Sankalp Malik, Adv Revenue by: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05/03/2024 Date of pronouncement 15/05/2024
O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.1750 and 1751/Del/2023 for AY 2014-15, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. 356933681050118 dated 15.01.2019 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.06.2017 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’) and against the order of the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 31.08.2018 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271D of the Act dated 01.02.2017 by the Assessing Officer, Addl. CIT, Range-1, Ghaziabad.
Let us take up the ITA No. 1750/Del/2023 for AY 2014-15 challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act.
ITA No. 1750 & 1751/Del/2023 Smt Kamalpreet Singh
At the outset, we find that there is delay in filing of appeal of 1670 days. The legal heir of the assessee had explained in the delay condonation petition stating that her husband (assessee herein) had died on 28.01.2018 and after his death, the family and the legal heir shifted their house from 738 ground Floor, Niti Khand-1, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad to Flat No 401, Tower No 5, Orange County, Ahinsa Khand- 1, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, UP-201014. The penalty order u/s 271D of the Act was passed against which appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) on 06.05.2017 with a delay of 2 months mentioning the old address in Form 35 as Amrik Singh was alive at that time. Due to death of the assessee on 28.01.2018, the family members shifted their residence to the new address as stated supra. The ld CIT(A) had actually dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay. The legal heir of the assessee was made to understand that the appeal of the assessee was not disposed of and also relied on the communication dated 09.11.2022 through the intimation letter by the department in which they intimated that the communication window of the ld CIT(A) has been enabled. This communication letter is enclosed by the asseesee along the delay condonation petition. The legal representative came to know of the disposal of the appellate order by the ld CIT(A) when notice u/s 148A(b) dated 17.02.2024 fro AY 2016-17 was issued in the name of the deceased assessee and while checking with the portal thereon, she came to know about the impugned order of the ld CIT(A) on 19.04.2023. Immediately the legal heir approached the tax consultant and filed an appeal before this tribunal with a delay. From the explanation for the delay given by the assessee, we are inclined to accept the same and condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before us and admit the appeal for adjudication.
As stated supra, the ld CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 2 months in filing the appeal. Considering the fact that late Amrik Singh was sick during the pendency of appellate proceedings and eventually died on 28.01.2018, and also considering the fact that legal heir of late Amrik Singh was not conversant with the income tax proceedings, in the interest of substantial justice, we direct the ld CIT(A) to condone the delay of 2 months
ITA No. 1750 & 1751/Del/2023 Smt Kamalpreet Singh
and decide this appeal afresh in accordance with law. Hence, we restore this appeal to the file of the ld CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA No 1751/Del/2023
In this appeal there is delay of 2098 days in filing of appeal by the assessee. For the reasons stated hereinabove in earlier appeal, the delay is hereby condoned in the interest of substantial justice and the appeal of the assessee is hereby admitted for adjudication.
We find that assessee had preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) on 05.01.2018 with a delay of 5 months approximately against the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.06.2017. The ld CIT(A) had not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. For the reasons stated hereinabove in earlier appeal, we hold that the ld CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. We direct the ld CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide this appeal afresh in accordance with law. Hence, we restore this appeal to the file of the ld CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15/05/2024. -Sd/- -Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:15/05/2024 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant Page | 3