SH. GURPREET SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee's counsel had inadvertently failed to upload the condonation application, and in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return for AY 2011-12, but due to discrepancies and non-response to notices, an ex-parte penalty was imposed. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal for not filing a definite application for condonation of delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-filing of a condonation application, and whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV
आदेश/ORDER
PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2011-12 against the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi. The following grounds have been taken :
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in passing an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal on the ground of absence of filing of definite ITA 476/CHD/2023 A.Y.2011-12 Page 2 of 5 application for condonation of delay which is arbitrary and unjustified.
2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs.31,21,238/- u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act which is illegal, arbitrary & unjustified.
That the penalty imposed under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act is not imposable in as much as there is neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income and as such the order passed under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act is illegal, arbitrary & unjustified.
4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the levy of penalty based on estimated additions which is not imposable and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified.
That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax upholding the imposition of penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus, untenable.
The facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Income Tax Return for assessment year 2011-12 on 03.03.2016 declaring an income of Rs.77,586/- under the head ‘Dairy Farming’ and Rs.2,10,000/- as Agriculture Income. As there was substantial discrepancy between the income declared and deposits in his bank account, the case was selected for scrutiny. Despite several notices issued by the Assessing Officer, none attended the proceedings, nor there was any response from the assessee's end. Therefore, penalty of Rs.31,21,238/- was imposed ex-parte u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by an order dated 27.06.2017. Against
ITA 476/CHD/2023 A.Y.2011-12 Page 3 of 5 this penalty, the assessee went in appeal before the ld.
CIT(A).
3. Before Ld. CIT(A), several notices dated 23.04.2018, 30.05.2018, 06.11.2018, 29.03.2019, 29.05.2019, 17.06.2019, 04.01.2021, 10.10.2022 etc. were issued. The assessee was required to file application for condonation of delay as there was no definite application for condonation of delay. On 29.05.2023, the assessee filed a reply in support of the grounds of appeal but no application for condonation of delay was filed. In the absence of any request for condonation of delay, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs.31,21,238/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
5. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. Shri Daljit Singh Sandhu, Advocate, who appeared before ld. CIT(A) on behalf of the assessee, has filed an application dated 06.03.2024 stating that the written submissions were uploaded on the portal, but inadvertently, the application for condonation of delay in ITA 476/CHD/2023 A.Y.2011-12 Page 4 of 5 filing the appeal before CIT(A) was not uploaded, although it was mentioned in Form No.35. We have found that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of non-compliance of the notices issued by the office of the ld. CIT(A) and also in the absence of application for condonation of delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present his case. The Assessee cannot be penalized for the lapse of his counsel. Therefore, the file is restored to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(Appeals).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 12th March,2024.
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 →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
