S K ENTERPRISES,DELHI V. ITO WARD - 60(5), DELHI

ITA 3122/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. S.K. Enterprises, which appealed against the penalties imposed under sections 271F and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The penalties were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in an ex-parte order. The Assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the health issues of their counsel, who was suffering from depression, anxiety, and dementia, and was unaware of the penalty orders until informed by the department in February 2024. The Tribunal agreed that the delay was justifiable and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide on the merits after hearing the Assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36933 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT GUPTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIPRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3121& 3122/Del/2024, A.Y.2013-14) M/s. S.K. Enterprises, S-561, School Block Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 PAN : ACDFS3126L Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv. Respondent by Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: Both the appeals filed by the single Assessee, aggrieved by the orders of Ld. CIT(A) dated 21/05/2024. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessee ex-parte by confirming the orders of penalty dated 15/09/2023 imposed u/s 271F and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) respectively. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) committed error in not condoning the delay of 173 days, though the Assessee has ITA No.3121 & 3122 /Del/2024 S K Enterprises, Delhi Page 2 of 4 shown sufficient caused for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, Ld. AR sought for allowing the appeal by condoning the delay and prayed for restoring the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. 3. Per contra, Ld. DR relying on the orders of lower authorities sought for dismissal of the appeal. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the material. Aggrieved by the order of the penalties, the Assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 173 days. The Assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the counsel who was dealing with all the tax and audit matters, not well and having treatment for depression, anxiety and minute dementia. The Assessee was not aware of passing the ex parte penalty order under Section 271F as well as 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessee came to know regarding passing of the orders of penalty only in the month of February, 2024 when the department informed that the complaint will be filed against the Assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed the same. 5. Though, we are agree with the proposition that the aggrieved person expected to file the appeal before the CIT(A) within the period of limitation prescribed in the Act, however considering the reasons for condoning the ITA No.3121 & 3122 /Del/2024 S K Enterprises, Delhi Page 3 of 4 delay narrated by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) shall have condoned the delay of 173 days and should have decided the appeal on merit. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law after hearing the Assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 23rd October, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23/10/2024 Binita/R.N, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI ITA No.3121 & 3122 /Del/2024 S K Enterprises, Delhi Page 4 of 4 "