GEETA BEHL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 30(1), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” BENCH, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
(Physical hearing)
Geeta Behl
E-54, Masjid Moth,
Greater Kailash-2,
South Delhi-110048. [PAN: AAHPB3714D]
Vs
ITO, Ward 30(1), New Delhi
Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110002. Appellant / Assessee

Respondent / Revenue

Assessee by Ms. Monalisa Maitey, Advocate
Revenue by Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. DR
Date of institution of appeal
30.10.2025
Date of hearing
01.12.2025
Date of pronouncement
17.12.2025

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dated 26.08.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18, wherein penalty levied under section 270A was upheld. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessment was completed under section 144 by making addition of Rs. 90,33,525/-. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order initiated penalty for under reporting of income. The assessment a well A penalty proceeding was also completed in ex-parte proceedings. The assessee became aware of assessment order and penalty only on 08.05.2025 when demand notice was served upon the Geeta Behl 2

assessee. In fact, the assessee has neither under reported the income nor any occasion to misreporting of income. During the relevant financial year, the assessee sold immovable and earned long term capital gain.
The assessee has no taxable income, thus, no return of income was filed. The assessing officer made addition by treating the long term gain as short term gain and not allowed the cost of acquisition of flat. The appeal in quantum assessment is still pending before Tribunal in ITA No.
6765/Del/2025. The proceedings were completed ex-parte, therefore, the assessee may be given one more opportunity to contest the case on merit.
3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld.
Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that assessee is habitual defaulter in not making timely compliance. The lower authorities have given more than reasonable opportunity during assessment as well as while levying penalty and the penalty order may be confirmed.
4. I have considered rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record carefully. I find that all the proceedings that is assessment order, penalty proceeding and ld. CIT(A) is completed in ex-parte proceedings.
I find that assessee is seems to be interested in pursuing her case on merit. As there is no finding on merit by lower authorities, therefore, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer to decide it afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the Geeta Behl
3

assessing officer shall provide reasonable opportunity assesse is also directed to be more vigilant in future and making timely compliance.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order was pronounced in the open Court on 17 /12/2025. PAWAN SINGH
JUDICIAL MEMBER

MUMBAI, Dated: 17/12/2025
Biswajit

Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)
The Assessee;
(2)
The Revenue;
(3)
The PCIT / CIT (Judicial);
(4)
The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5)
Guard file.
By Order