AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeals Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 30.01.2023 arising out of assessment order dated 03.12.2019 passed under section 272(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1.That the learned CIT(Appeal)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by confirming the penalty imposed of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, though the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act has been passed, and therefore, the learned AO should be directed to delete the penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act.”
At the outset, we have noted that the Registry has identified the delay of 1000 days in this case for filing of appeal. Justifying the delay, the appellant had submitted that due to bona fide and unavoidable reasons including administrative constraints and delay in obtaining professional advice, the appeal could not file in time. The ld. Counsel submitted that reasons for delay, inter alia, is on account of non-communication of an order received on email id [email protected] of assessee’s Chartered accountant and also on account of ignorance of legal procedure and proceeding & mis-interpretation of law and wrong advice of the previous Chartered Accountant and thereafter, accordingly on the advice of the another Chartered Accountant Firm, filed appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, it was argued that the delay is not intentional. We are conscious that no litigant gains by delay its matter. Delay of 1000 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Hon’ble Apex court decision in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Heard rival parties and perused the material on records.
The only issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal is regarding the imposition of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty has been imposed for non-compliance of the notice dated 17.10.2019. The ld. Counsel submitted that the said notice was sent on the email id being [email protected], which belonged to the earlier Chartered Accountant. It is the case of the assessee that the ld. AO has passed an order under section 143(3) and that therefore it leads to presumption that the ld. AO had condoned the non-compliance of earlier notices. Consequently, no penalty was leviable in this case.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the order of this Tribunal in the case of Geetu Kamra vs ITO vide ITA No.5144/Del/2024 dated 27.02.2025 holding as under:-
“…8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and case laws relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, the assessee failed to respond to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dt. 02.11.2019, however, in response, subsequent notices, the assessee has made necessary compliances and thereafter the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, by respectfully following the decision referred to (supra), we find that the penalty-imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act is not justifiable in the present case. Further the AO himself has deemed to have condoned the default of assessee of making noncompliance on earlier occasion as the assessment was finally passed u/s 143(3) of the Act after considering the necessary information and evidences furnished by the assessee subsequently. Under these circumstances, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A), and direct the AO to delete the penalty…”
The ld. DR placed reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities.
We have noted that in the case of Geetu Kamra vs ITO (supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has held that as the ld. AO passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, there is definite presumption qua condonation of earlier non-compliance and that therefore penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act is not permissible. Therefore, by respectfully following the decision rendered supra, we hold that penalty is not justified in the present case. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.