HITESH SINGLA 32579 STREET NO 1 PARAS RAM NAGAR ,BATHIDA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AAYKAR BHAWAN CIVIL LINE BATHINDA, BATHINDA

ITA 628/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Hitesh Singla against a penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bathinda, for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty of Rs. 10,000 was contested on the grounds that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 99 days in filing, without considering the merits of the case. The assessee argued that the dismissal violated the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was provided to explain the delay. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination of the reasons for the delay and a decision on the appeal's merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838746 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 628/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hitesh Singla, 32579, Street No. 1, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda 151001, Punjab [PAN: HASPS 9396Q] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bathinda Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Bathinda 150001 Punjab (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D. R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 22.01.2026 20 .02.2026 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 07.10.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the penalty order u/s 272A(1)(d) of the ITO, Ward-1(1), Bathinda dated 31.08.2022. Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. No. 628/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Brief facts emerging from records are that penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of Rs. 10,000/- only has been imposed by the AO for non-compliance to notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act 61, on at least four occasions as ascertainable from the penalty order and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed for non-compliance of statutory notices. 3. The matter carried in appeal before the Ld CIT(A), has been dismissed u/s 249(2) of the Act, by refusing to admit the appeal to adjudicate on merits on account of delay in filing the same by 99 (Ninety Nine) Days. 4. Now the assessee is before the Tribunal on eight grounds of appeal as per form 36 , challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act and the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted at the onset , that principles of natural justice has been violated , in as much the Ld. first appellate authority has refused to admit the appeal for hearing on merits because the same was belatedly filed by ninety nine days and the said delay was not condoned in spite of existence of sufficient reasons for the delay resulting in dismissal of the appeal u/s 249(2) of the Act. 5. He further submitted that the reasons for delay was contained in Form 35 , and if the Ld first appellate authority is not prima facie satisfied, he is under an obligation to allow the assessee an opportunity of hearing to explain the reasons for such delay , before dismissing the said appeal and in the instant case no such opportunity has been given , which results in violation of natural justice, and he prays for such opportunity. Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. No. 628/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 6. The Ld DR relied on the order of the Ld first appellate authority. 7. We have heard the rival contentions (and though it is a case of imposition of penalty of a minimum amount) we find that in the instant case the assessee has raised issues regarding violation of natural justice. The appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) has been dismissed on the grounds of delay in filing, because the appellate authority was prima facie not satisfied with the reasons for the delay contained in form 35 , but in such a case, on the principles of natural justice , the assessee should have been allowed an opportunity to explain the reasons to establish “ sufficient cause ” to the satisfaction of the appellate authority, and as such we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to the Ld. first appellate authority , to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay and only if the same is satisfactorily explained , the appeal will be decided on merits on the grounds contained in form 35. 8. In the result the appeal of the assessee remanded back to the Ld. first appellate authority and as such the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 20.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member Printed from counselvise.com 4 I.T.A. No. 628/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order Printed from counselvise.com "