PAWAN KUMAR RANA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 69(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1306/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 June 2023AY 2020-212 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the statement was filed within the extended due date. Therefore, the penalty levied was obliterated.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a statement within the extended due date as per a notice issued under Section 285BA(5). The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty, stating no alternate remedy was available to drop the proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied was justified when the assessee complied with the notice within the extended due date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 285BA(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Kul BharatDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Reema Jain, Adv
Hearing: 22.06.2023Pronounced: 23.06.2023

ORDER

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for AY 2020-21.

2.

On going through the record we find that the statement has been filed within the period of “extended due date” as per notice issued u/s 285BA(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO has also held that the penalty has been levied as there is no alternate remedy available as per income tax act to drop the penalty proceedings. Hence, keeping in view the facts on record, the penalty levied is hereby obliterated.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/06/2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →