SOOFI TYRE PALACE,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 149/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 August 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 78-day delay by the assessee. It restored both the quantum appeal and the consequential penalty appeals back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to present and prove its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed quantum and penalty appeals. The quantum appeal stemmed from a best judgment assessment (u/s 147 r.w.s. 144) where the AO estimated income at 8% of bank credits, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) due to a 78-day delay in filing the appeal. The penalty appeals (u/s 271(1)(b), 271B, 271F) were consequential and based on ex-parte orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the 78-day delay in filing the appeal; and consequently, if the best judgment assessment and consequential penalty orders should be upheld without a merits-based adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271B,Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JM

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No.149/ASR/2025
ITA No.150/ASR/2025
ITA No.151/ASR/2025
ITA No.152/ASR/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

(िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.152/ASR/2025 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/s Soofi Tyre Palace ITO बनाम/ Vs. (Partner Sajad Ahmad Sofi) Ward Udhampur Anantnag, J&K 192 101 Jammu and Kashmir. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADLFS-7057-K (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/Appellant by : Sh. Mohd Iqbal Untoo (CA) – Ld.AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid quantum appeal as well as penalty appeals by assessee arises out of separate orders of first appellate authority. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 17-12-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 30-01-2024. In the assessment order, Ld. AO estimated income of 8% of total bank credits for want of any explanation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for want of condonation of delay of 78 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has made a prayer for disposal of appeal on merits and stated that the assessee is in a position to plead and prove its case if another opportunity is granted to the assessee before lower authorities. The Ld. Sr. DR has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

2.

We are of the considered opinion that the delay of 78 days could have been condoned by Ld. CIT(A). Nevertheless, we condone the delay and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.

3.

The other three appeals assails levy of consequential penalties u/s 271(1)(b), 271B and 271F. Since quantum appeal has already been restored back by us to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and the impugned orders are exparte orders, these appeals also stand restored back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith.

4.

All the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →