FAIRYLAND HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT.LTD.,GWALIOR vs. ACIT, GWALIOR, GWALIOR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made out a case for reasonable explanation for non-payment of taxes due to a pending waiver application for interest. Therefore, the penalty under section 221(1) was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee was levied a penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs under section 221(1) for non-payment of tax demand. The lower authorities held that the assessee failed to provide cogent reasons for the non-payment.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under section 221(1) for non-payment of tax demand is leviable when the assessee has a pending waiver application for interest and provides reasonable explanation for the default.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”],Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1033180097(1) dated 31.05.2021, involving proceedings under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have levied section 221(1) penalty of Rs.8 lakhs in assessee’s case for non-payment of tax demand, thereby holding it to have failed to explain cogent reasons for non-payment thereof.
It is in this factual backdrop that the learned counsel invited our attention to assessee’s paper book wherein it had already moved for waiver of demand regarding interest component etc. which was very well pending as on the date of impugned penalty order dated 05.01.2018. The assessee has explained that lack of cooperation is not required to be adjudicated once it has made out a case of “reasonable” explanation to get the impugned penalty deleted. This tribunal’s “Special Bench” in M’s. Claris Life Sciences v/s DCIT dated 04.10.2017 has already settled the issue that it is indeed open for an assessee to plead and prove the relevant good and sufficient reasons to get out of the rigor of section 221 penalty herein. We, thus, conclude that the assessee’s default in non-payment of the taxes herein, is on account of the foregoing circumstances only and delete the impugned sec. 221 penalty in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13TH February, 2025.
More judgments on Section 221(1)
- Ruby Singh, Delhi vs DCIT, CC-8, DelhiITA 3044/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Ruby Singh, Delhi vs DCIT, CC-8, DelhiITA 3043/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
- Ruby Singh, Delhi vs DCIT, CC-8, DelhiITA 3042/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamuben Ramanlal Patel, Daman vs Income Tax Officer, DamanITA 798/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
- Bank of Baroda (E-Vijaya Bank), Delhi vs Addl Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1864/DEL/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026