ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LIBERTIES SOCIAL JUSTICE,DELHI V. ITO WARD EXEMP (1), DELHI

ITA 1437/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the All India Council of Human Rights appealing against a penalty imposed under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for underreporting income. The initial scrutiny assessment for the Assessment Year 2017-18 resulted in an assessed income of Rs.7,11,180, leading to penalty proceedings. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.34,630, which the assessee contested. The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 322 days in filing, which was not condoned. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the CIT (A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126225 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ TANWAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Dismissed; National Faceless Appeal; Commissioner; Statistical purposes; Restored; Exempt; Delay in filing of appeal; Adjudication on merits
• Section: 143(3); 274

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1437/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) All India Council of Human Rights vs. ITO, Ward Exempt (1), Liberties Social Justice, Delhi. H – 10, Basement, NDSE Part 1, Delhi – 110 030. (PAN : AACAA6105H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Manoj Tanwar, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date of Order : 23.04.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.01.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are, in this case, scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the year under consideration was completed on 26.12.2019 on an assessed 2 ITA No.1437/DEL/2024 income of Rs.7,11,180/- and, therefore, penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act were initiated on account of under reporting of income amounting to Rs.7,11,180/-. 3. Subsequently, penalty under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act was issued to the assessee asking as to why an order imposing a penalty should not be made under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income. However, the assessee made compliance to the said notice on 24.01.2020 and filed its submissions. However, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee's plea could not be accepted, as assessee could not produce any concrete evidence or justification in favour of dropping of penalty under section 270A. After referring to the applicability of the provisions of section 270A of the Act, Assessing Officer held that a total amount of Rs.7,11,180/- has been under reported income by the assessee which lead to evasion of tax and accordingly, imposed penalty of Rs.34,630/- u/s 270A of the Act to the extent of 50% of the tax sought to be evaded due to under reporting of income. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) observed that there is a delay of 322 days in filing the appeal and the assessee prayed for condone the delay. However, ld. CIT (A) observed that the assessee filed condonation with reasons that 3 ITA No.1437/DEL/2024 were found to be neither sufficient nor convincing to be acceptable. Accordingly, he found that there is no other way except treating the appeal as invalid since the same is not filed within the stipulated time as per the statute and held that the assessee has failed to advance the sufficient reason for the extra ordinary delay in filing of appeal, hence he did not condone the delay of 322 days and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us against the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act of Rs.34,626/-. 6. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay because it was of 322 days. He submitted that the assessee has filed quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal before the ld. CIT (A) with the delay and the ld. CIT (A) condoned the delay in the quantum appeal, however did not condone the delay in penalty appeal. Accordingly, he prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) may be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication on merits. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue did not have any objection to this proposition of the assessee. 8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Upon careful consideration and in the interest of justice, we condone the 4 ITA No.1437/DEL/2024 delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT (A) and accordingly, we remit the file back to the ld. CTI (A) to adjudicate the issue on merits as per law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed through his counsel to fully cooperate with the ld. CIT (A) during the proceedings. We hold and direct accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of April, 2025 after the conclusion of hearing. Sd/- sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 23.04.2025 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "