NINE EXPORT LLP,JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 718/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nine Export LLP, which appealed against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 4(2), Jaipur, for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty of Rs. 30,000 was confirmed by the CIT(A) and was based on the grounds that the assessee had willfully avoided compliance with the notices. The assessee argued that the business was closed, and thus, the notices were not received. The ITAT found sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal and decided to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh examination of whether the notices were properly served.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775669 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Vijay Vishan Meghani vs DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bom.), Just Stee vs DCIT [2012] 74 DTR 86 (MA), B. Madhuri Goud vs B.Damodar Reddy [2012] 12 SCC 693, Commissioner of Income-tax v.Standard Mercantile Co. [1986] 160 ITR 613 (PAT.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: TWINKLE JAIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa a Jh xxu Xkks;y ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 718/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Nine Export LLP B-14, Ratna Sagar Complex Moti Singh Bhomiya Ka Rasta, Jaipur 302003 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 4(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAOFN 2788A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Ms. Twinkle Jain, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 11/08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 29-10-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2018-19 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was wrong and unjust in confirming the penalty order u/s 272A(1)(d) of the IT Act, 1961 which is void ab initio and deserves to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 718/JP/2025 NINE EXPORT LLP VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was wrong and unjust in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.30,000/- on account of compliance of notice which has never been served to the assessee.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 120 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay narrating the reason that ‘’The order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 29-10-2024 by the ld. CIT(A) which was not received by the assessee firm as the firm is not running its business. The firm’s business was closed before 5-6 years when the partner of the firm Mr. Deepak Agarwal has visited his counsel’s office for getting about his personal income tax return, then the fact came to the knowledge of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) had passed the ex-parte order which is shown in ITBA Portal. Then the Counsel has advised him to file the appeal of the firm. The assessee is not having too much knowledge regarding income tax provisions and compliance. Mostly the assessee resides out of Jaipur for the business purpose. The delay is 120 days which is bona fide. Therefore, we pray to conondonation of delay as there is sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal’’. To support the submissions the ld.AR of the assessee has relied upon various case laws, few of which are as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 718/JP/2025 NINE EXPORT LLP VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR (i) Vijay Vishan Meghani vs DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) (ii) Just Stee vs DCIT [2012] 74 DTR 86 (MA) (iii) B. Madhuri Goud vs B.Damodar Reddy [2012] 12 SCC 693 The assessee Shri Deepak Agarwal also filed an affidavit deposing therein that ‘’the above order was served online in ITBA Portal on 29-10-2024 which came into our knowledge in April 2025 when I visited my Counsel’s office for some other work as we have not engaged any regular counsel for this closed business entity,’’ 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and from the submissions of the assessee, the Bench feels that the assessee was prevented with sufficient reason for not filling the appeal in time and therefore, we condone the delay considering the affidavit of the assessee Shri Deepak Agarwal. Hence, the delay so made by the assessee in filing the appeal before us is condoned. 3.1 Apropos to the grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by confirming the action of the AO as to imposition of penalty amounting to Rs.30,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act upon the assessee for the reason that the assessee had deliberately and willfully avoided the compliance of the notices u/s 142(1) dated 12-12-2022, Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO. 718/JP/2025 NINE EXPORT LLP VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR 18-01-2023 and 06-02-2023 and thus failed to give an any cogent reason for his failure. The narration so made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’7.6.1 In the present case also, the appellant had failed to comply with notices u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 12.12.2022, 18.01.2023 & 06.02.2023 and show cause notice issued by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, the appellant had also failed to comply with two show cause notices u/s.274 r.w.s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act issued during the penalty proceedings. Therefore, it is clearly seen that the facts of the case of appellant is similar to the facts in the case of Standard Mercantile Co. Thus, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v.Standard Mercantile Co. [1986] 160 ITR 613 (PAT.) is clearly applicable in the case of appellant. 7.7 In view of the above discussions and factual matrix of the case and keeping in view of judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v.Standard Mercantile Co. and that of Ahmedabad Tribunal (supra), the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act levied by the AO amounting to Rs.30,000/- is confirmed. Thus, grounds of appeal no. 1 & 2 are dismissed. 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the submitted that the levy of penalty of Rs.30,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act on account of non-compliance of notice is not justified as the firm is not running its business and it is closed down for the last 5-6 years and thus the notices were not received by the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed to restore the appeal to the file of AO for afresh adjudication by providing one more opportunity to the issue in question. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO. 718/JP/2025 NINE EXPORT LLP VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noticed that the AO vide his order dated 30-06-2023 imposed the penalty of Rs.30,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act upon the assessee by holding as under:- ‘’Looking to the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the assessee has deliberately and willfully avoided the compliance of the notice u/s 142(1) dated 12-12-2022, 18-01-2023 and 06-02-2023 and failed to give any cogent reason for his failure. Therefore, a penalty of Rs.30,000/- u/s 272(A)(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby imposed.’’ In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. The submission of the ld. AR of the assessee is that the assessee had not received any notices as the business of the firm was closed down for the last 5-6 years. The ld. DR submits that the notice was served upon the assessee through speed post and online. In this situation, the Bench feels that with a view to settling the dispute in question, it would be in the interest of equity and justice to restore the matter to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication as to whether the notice was duly served upon the assessee through speed post and online and thus the issue be decided on merit by the AO in accordance with law. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO. 718/JP/2025 NINE EXPORT LLP VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in the open court on 08 /09/2025 Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu Xkks;y ½ ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ (Gagan Goyal) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08/09/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- M/s. Nine Export LLP, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-4(2), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 718/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "