ARJUN ARORA,NEW DELHI V. ITO WARD 44(6), NEW DELHI

ITA 4569/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Arjun Arora, the appellant, who faced penalty proceedings under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act for failing to get his accounts audited or furnish an audit report by the due date for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Initially, a penalty was imposed, which Arjun Arora appealed against but was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances and the related quantum appeal where the assessment order was quashed, decided to condone the delay and delete the penalty, imposing a nominal cost instead.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822451 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURAV ROHTAGI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 4569/DEL/2025 Arjun Arora Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4569/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Arjun Arora Plot No. 71/7, Ground floor Building No. 14A, Industrial Area, Moti Nagar, New Delhi PAN: AACPA7560R Vs ITO Ward-44(6), New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Saurav Rohtagi, CA Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/12/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), dated 26/06/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, penalty proceedings has been imitated against the Assessee on the ground that the Assessee failed to get accounts audited or to furnish a report of such audit as required under the provision of Section44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) within due date of furnishing the return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 u/s 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, an order of penalty came to be passed u/s 271B of the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 4569/DEL/2025 Arjun Arora Vs. ITO Act. Aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 22/06/2021 the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 1050 days in filing the Appeal. The Appeal filed by the Assessee has been dismissed on delay in latches. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 26/06/2025, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 1050 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee in delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 22/06/2021, Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 1050 days. As per the Assessee, the cause of the delay was that ‘The impugned order dated 22/06/2021 has been passed u/s 271B. The said order has been received on registered e-mail as on the income tax portal. The said order has been passed for the reasons that the Assessee had failed to get it accounts audited or file audit report on or before the due date. It is matter of record that the Assessee got report u/s 44AB in Form 3CB/3CD on 27/10/2017, however, it was Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 4569/DEL/2025 Arjun Arora Vs. ITO uploaded on income tax portal on 31/03/2018 at the time of filing of return. The Assessee was under a bona-fide belief and as instructed by the counsel that the penalty would be dropped as audit report has been obtained in time on 27/10/2017, however, the same would be dropped when the quantum appeal would be decided. The new counsel Sh. SauravRohatgi who I have engaged on 30/06/2024 suggested me to file appeal against the order u/s 271B as quantum appeal has no bearing on penalty levied u/s 271B’. 5. After going through the reasons assigned for condonation of delay, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the Appeal. 6. As could be seen from the above, the Assessee has blamed a his Counsel for giving wrong advise without even mentioning the name of the said Counsel and if a Counsel has failed in his professional duty, it was open for the Assessee to take appropriate action for his professional misconduct. But no such material brought on record before the Ld. CIT(A) or before us. Therefore, the reason assigned and allegation made on the Counsel by the Assessee for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was without supporting any material. However, considering the fact that in the quantum Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 4569/DEL/2025 Arjun Arora Vs. ITO order itself wherein the impugned penalty u/s 271B has been initiated, we deem it fit to condone the same by imposing cost on the Assessee. Accordingly, the delay of 1050 in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned subject to Assessee depositing a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. 7. In view of the fact that in the quantum proceedings vide order dated 23/06/2025, the Ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment order itself wherein the impugned penalty u/s 271B has been initiated and the said order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 23/06/2025 has been affirmed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 5017/Del/2025 dated 03/12/2025, in our opinion, order of penalty dated 22/06/2021 passed u/s 271B of the Act does not survive. Accordingly, the impugned order of penalty is hereby deleted. 8. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd December, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 22.12.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 4569/DEL/2025 Arjun Arora Vs. ITO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "