Jay Prakash Singh vs Circle 70(1), Delhi 45

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM

Both appeals have been preferred by the same assessee against the order dated 14.10.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘Id. CIT(A)’] arising out of penalty order dated 1402.2025 passed u/s 271(1)(b) and penalty order dated 03.03.2025 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Registry has identified a delay of 82 days and 447 days in these cases, in filing of these appeals before the tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as the assessee is not fully conversant with complicated tax laws, after passing of the assessment order, the appellant had engaged a counsel to represent him before the CIT(A). The said counsel assured the assessee that he will do all the needful compliance and look after the notices and communications received from the CIT(A). The appellant was under bona fide belief that his appeal was being properly pursued. The appellant subsequently came to know about the dismissal and the legal consequences thereof only at a later stage, when the assessee visited the office of the counsel to check the status of the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A). Then he came to know that his appeals were dismissed ex-parte. However, the appellant was not made aware of the legal implications and limitation period for further appeals before this Hon’ble Tribunal by his professional. Therefore, the delay is purely unintentional, bona fide, and due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The Ld. DR did not object to the condonation of delay. We have considered the justification put forth by the assessee and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate both these appeals.

Both the appeals of the assessee have been preferred against confirmation of adverse orders passed u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. CIT(A). For the purposes of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order.

The appellant is contesting the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 14.10.2025 passed by DIN & order no.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081751636(1). The appellant has submitted that in its case order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 was passed by the ld. Assessing Officer on 13.12.2019. The ld. Assessing Officer had determined income of the assessee at Rs.88,62,738/- as against returned income of Rs.4,87,550/-. The additions made included Rs.80 lakhs on Long Term Capital Gains and Rs.3,75,188/- on account of undisclosed salary income. The ld. CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to verify indexed cost of acquisition and claim of exemption u/s 54 and recalculate long term capital gains. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to verify appellant’s claim of exempted allowances and perquisite while calculating income from salary.

It is the case of the ld. Counsel that the ld. Assessing Officer gave appeal effect dated 18.02.2025 to the order of ld. CIT(A) which indicated that full relief was given to the assessee. In support of his contentions, the appellant assessee has filed a screenshot of information to this effect provided to the appellant by the ld. Assessing Officer. The appellant has further submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer has passed in its case an order u/s 154 dated 14.05.2026, where it was confirmed that in appellant’s case, appeal effect was given on 18.02.2025 and that consequently a demand of Rs.2,29,670/- was raised on account of non-allowance of credit of prepaid taxes. A copy of the impugned order has also been placed on records by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant assessee that inspite of no concealment demand available in appellant’s hands, the ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to pass penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), dated 03.03.2025 imposing penalty of Rs.17,62,147/- without considering the appeal effect order dated 18.02.2025. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the said fact could not be considered by the ld. CIT(A) through his order dated 14.10.2025 (supra) as the same was passed ex-parte. The ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly requested for deletion of the penalty order.

The ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the lower authorities.

We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on records. We have noted the undisputed facts on record that the consequent to directions of ld. CIT(A), the ld. Assessing Officer had passed an appeal effect order on 18.02.2025, whereby the additions made in the order u/s 144/147 were deleted. Consequently, there was no concealed income available for any penalty on the date of passing of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) on 03.03.2025. Considering this undisputed fact on records, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.17,62,147/- imposed upon the assessee through order u/s 271(1)(c) on 03.03.2025. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.

The appellant is contesting the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs.20,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 14.02.2025. We have noted that the order u/s 144/147 was passed by the ld. Assessing Officer for non-compliance to statutory notices of the Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that because of genuine personal grounds, the assessee could not make compliance to the notices of ld. Assessing Officer. It was requested that a lenient view be taken and the penalty be deleted.

The ld. DR placed reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on records. We have noted from the affidavits filed by the assessee that he is not conversant with tax laws. We have also noted that the assessee was dependent upon his professional for compliance before lower authorities and possibly the said professional did not make due compliances. Be that as it may be, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.20,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Finally, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.