DILEEP KUMAR OJHA,SITAPUR V. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

ITA 453/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves eleven appeals filed by the assessee, Dileep Kumar Ojha, against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) which were dismissed on grounds of limitation. The appeals pertain to quantum additions and penalties imposed for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18. The assessee argued that the delays in filing the appeals were due to medical reasons, which the Tribunal accepted as 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal also found that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunities during the assessment and penalty proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471433 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV KRISHNA SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVINDER AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 271(1)(c); 69C; 69A; 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2017-18 Dileep Kumar Ojha S/o Hari Krishna Ojha, Maal Road, Shivpuri, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh-261001. v. NFAC Delhi, Delhi. PAN:AAEPO2855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ravinder Aggarwal, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT(DR) O R D E R PER BENCH.: (1). These eleven appeals have been filed by the assessee. The appeals vide I.T.A. Numbers. 453/LKW/2024, 455/LKW/2024, 458/LKW/2024, 459/LKW/2024, 462/LKW/2024), pertain to quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. The assessee’s appeals against the aforesaid assessment orders were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide separate impugned appellate orders. All the aforesaid appeals were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds of limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of the aforesaid appeals beyond the time limit prescribed under section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The present appeals before us, vide aforesaid ITA. No.453/LKW/2024, vide ITA. No. 455/LKW/2024, vide ITA. No. 458/LKW/2024, vide ITA. No. 459/LKW/2024 and vide ITA. No. 462/LKW/2024 are filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate orders of Ld. CIT(A). ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 9 (1.1) The appeals vide ITA. No.454/LKW/2024, ITA. No.456/LKW/2024, ITA. No.457/LKW/2024, ITA. No. 460/LKW/2024 and ITA. No.461/LKW/2024, pertain to penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. The appeal vide ITA. No.463/LKW/2024, pertains to penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 270A of the Act for assessment year 2017- 18. The assessee’s appeals against the aforesaid orders levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and under section 270A of the Act were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide separate impugned appellate orders. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of the aforesaid appeals beyond the time limit prescribed under section 249(3) of the Act; and the assessee’s aforesaid appeals were dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. For the sake of convenience and brevity, these eleven appeals are being hereby disposed ofs through this consolidated order. (2). The grounds of appeal are as under: - ITA. No.453/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 148. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs.11,09,840/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Ld. AO has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs.4,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. 5. The order passed by the Ld. AO is against principles of natural justice. 6. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld AO has erred both in law as well as on facts in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 243C of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 9 7. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c).” ITA. No.454/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.O u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 271(1)(c) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,22,195/ 4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice. 5. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal.” ITA. No.455/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. Authorities below u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 148. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Authorities below u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. Authorities below needs be annulled being barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 2,12,937/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 18,20,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 5. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 6,41,950/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act. 6. The order passed by the Ld. Authorities below is against principles of natural justice. 7. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 243C of the of the 1.T. Act 1961. 8. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) . 9. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 9 ITA. No.456/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.O u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 271(1)(c) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 8,26,540/-. 4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice. 5. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal.” ITA. No.457/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.O u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 271(1)(c) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 10,37,099/-. 4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice. 5. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal.” ITA. No.458/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.0 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 148. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 24,60,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 9,31,940/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act. 5. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice. 6. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred both in law as well as on facts in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 243C of the of the I.T. Act 1961. ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 5 of 9 7. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c).” ITA. No.459/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. Authorities below u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 148. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Authorities below u/s !47 r.w.s 144 is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. Authorities below needs be annulled being barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 7,62,311/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act. 4. The order passed by the Ld. Authorities below is against principles of natural justice. 5. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 243C of the of the 1.T. Act 1961. 6. On the basis of facts and Circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 7. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” ITA. No.460/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.O u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 271(1)(c) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 2,37,452/-. 4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice. 5. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal.” ITA. No.461/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.O u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 271(1)(c) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 6 of 9 allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 2,06,540/-. 4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice. 5. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal.” ITA. No.462/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld Authorities below u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 148. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Authorities below u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. Authorities below needs be annulled being barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 7,10,374/- as business income of the assessee. 4. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 34,42,331/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in levying the tax u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961. 6. The order passed by the Ld. Authorities below is against principles of natural justice. 7. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 243C of the of the I.T. Act 1961. 8. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 270A and 271AAC(1). 9. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” ITA. No.463/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.O u/s 270A is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 270A 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO imposing penalty u/s 270A is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 33,359/-. 4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice. ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 7 of 9 5. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal.” (2.1). At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the Assessee submitted that the assessee was prevented by “sufficient cause”, on medical grounds, from filing the appeals in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) within the time limit prescribed under section 249(3) of the Act. He also drew our attention to medical papers of the assessee in this regard. Further, he submitted that the Assessing Officer passed the aforesaid assessment orders and also the aforesaid assessment orders levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and under section 270A of the Act without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In view of these submissions, he submitted that the issues in dispute regarding additions made in the assessment orders and penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act/under section 270A of the Act for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. Departmental Representative (“DR”, for short) for the Revenue expressed no objection to this request made by the Ld. AR for the Assessee. (2.2). We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials available on record. We are satisfied on consideration of the aforesaid medical reasons, that the assessee was prevented by “sufficient cause”, on medical grounds, from filing the appeals in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) within the time limit prescribed under section 249(3) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing of the aforesaid appeals in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). Further, we are also satisfied that the assessee did not get reasonable ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 8 of 9 opportunities during the assessment proceedings in the office of the Assessing Officer and during the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act/under section 270A of the Act. In view of the foregoing and as representatives of both sides are in agreement with this; we set aside the aforesaid impugned appellate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and we restore all the issues in dispute regarding the additions made in the assessment orders to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass fresh denovo assessment orders in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Similarly, we also set aside the impugned appellate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore all the issues regarding penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and also regarding penalty under section 270A of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18 to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass denovo orders, if, deemed fit, after passing the aforesaid denovo assessment orders in accordance with law, and after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions. In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27/02/2025 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 9 of 9 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File By order // True Copy// Assistant Registrar "