RISHU NANDWANI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(2), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that ignorance of tax laws is not a valid excuse for non-compliance. However, in the interest of substantive justice, the impugned orders were set aside and the quantum assessment was remanded to the AO. The penalty appeal was allowed.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed two appeals against the orders pertaining to quantum addition and penalty for AY 2012-13. The appeals were filed ex parte as the assessee was not conversant with taxation matters and solely depended on his tax consultant.
What were the issues?
Whether ignorance of tax laws can be a valid excuse for non-compliance, and whether the quantum addition and penalty should be set aside and remanded.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271(1)(c),Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI
Before: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI
सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 15.12.2025 15.12.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of two appeals of the same assessee. Both these appeals are being disposed of through a single order for the sake of convenience. These appeals are respectively pertaining to the quantum addition and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
1.1 The quantum appeal arises from order dated 29.05.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), Noida-2.The appeal on the penalty also arises from order dated 29.05.2025 by the same Ld. CIT(A).
Right at the outset, the Ld. AR mentioned that both the orders were ex parte before either of the authorities below for the reason that the assessee was not conversant with taxation matters and was solely dependent on his tax consultant, who does not appear to have kept the assessee informed about the pending proceedings. It was prayed that the lack of knowledge of taxation matters of the assessee should not lead to the assessee being unjustly penalized.
2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below but left it to the Bench to decide whether these matters deserve to be remanded back or not.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. It needs to be mentioned that in this case there can be no valid excuse for non-compliance before any of the authorities below on the ground of ignorance of tax laws. Also considerable resources of the I.T. Department would be expended in dealing with these matters and hence we impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee payable to the Allahabad High Court Legal Services Committee (Legal Aid Cell), by 31.01.2026. Furthermore, in the interest of substantive justice, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the quantum back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh assessment.
Accordingly, the penalty matter (ITA No.4672) is treated as allowed since the penalty would be deleted with the setting aside of the impugned order thereon. However, the Ld. AO would be at liberty to initiate the penalty proceedings again in case it is so required. is allowed and is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.12.2025
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026