SANJAY TUTEJA,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

ITA 5497/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjay Tuteja, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for not filing his ITR in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITO had initially imposed a penalty citing non-compliance, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). However, the appellant argued that he had filed the ITR on 25.01.2022, albeit after the deadline, due to his unfamiliarity with IT processes and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal, referencing a Supreme Court decision that extended the period of limitation due to the pandemic, found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126561 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa 1970 STC 211
• Laws Referred To: Income-Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.P. GOGIA
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation; Principal; Dismissed; National Faceless Appeal; Section 139(1); Commissioner; Directions; Department
• Section: 147; 148; 139(1); 274

Judgement Text

" INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5497/DEL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Tuteja, 10/23. Geeta Colony, Delhi. PIN 1100 31 PAN No. ACZPT0520F Vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is against order dated 10.10.2024 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income- Tax(Appeals) Unit 3, Coimbatore/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’) under Section 271F of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 28.09.2022 of the Income Tax Officer (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO”) passed under Section 271F of the Act for assessment year 2017-18. Assessee by: Shri S.P.Gogia, Adv. Department by: Shri Salil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date of pronouncement: 22.04.2025 ITA No.5497/Del/2024 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/assessee filed ITR for the assessment year 2017-18 on 26.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,48,020/-. On information available with the Department, the assessee had purchased moveable property of Rs.7,60,000/-. Proceedings under Section 147 of the Act was initiated. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. However, the assessee had not filed ITR in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. As the assessee has not filed the original ITR as per section 139(1) of the Act within the prescribed period, penalty proceedings under Section 271F of the Act was initiated. Notice under Section 274 read with section 271F asking assessee to show-cause-notice as to why penalty should not be imposed for failure to comply with provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act was issued on 29.03.2022 by the NFAC. Another opportunity was allowed to file submission in this regard by issue of show-cause-notice under Section 274 read with section 271F of the Act on 22.08.2022. The assessee filed submissions through e-filing portal on 02.09.2022. Ld. AO through order dated 28.09.2022 imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- for not filing ITR. ITA No.5497/Del/2024 3 3. Against order dated 28.09.2022 of the Ld. AO, appellant/assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred appeal. 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee, submitted that appellant had filed ITR for assessment year 2017-18 on 26.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,48,020/-. In response to notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act, assessee filed return on 25.01.2022 because the assessee is not I.T. familiar and his consultant did not respond due to spread of COVID 19 Virus. Ld. AO erred in imposing penalty without considering the fact of filing of ITR on 26.03.2018. Ld. AO in order dated 28.09.2022 has wrongly mentioned that assessee had not filed ITR in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act whereas the assessee had filed return on 25.01.2022. Submissions through e-filing portal mention that “the assessee has filed the return which is available on the Portal, in view of that you are requested to please withdraw the proceedings initiated by you”. ITA No.5497/Del/2024 4 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa 1970 STC 211 has observed “an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of quasi criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it was lawful to do so, whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the Authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of the relevant circumstances it has also been observed that the levy of penalty is in the nature of a quasi criminal proceeding and that the levy of penalty should be exercised only if the party concerned is proved to have acted total disregard of the law and in this regard the conduct of the assesses is quiet relevant, when there is no finding that the defaulting defaulted deliberately and the circumstances disclose that the assesses acted to the best of his capacity to comply with the provision of the law, the penalty shall not be levied, circumstances in each case has to be examined in the light of the principal enunciated.” ITA No.5497/Del/2024 5 7. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Department relied on impugned order. 8. From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contentions, it crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.10.2024 has upheld order dated 28.09.2022 of Ld. AO imposing penalty of Rs.5,000/- on assessee for not filing his ITR in response to notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. It is a material fact that in pursuance to notice dated 31.03.2021 under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed ITR on 25.01.2022. The assessee claims that he is not I.T. familiar and his consultant did not respond due to COVID 19 virus. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA No. 21 of 2022 In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation vide order dated 10.01.2022 had extended the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. 10. In view of above material facts and directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, passing of impugned orders dated 28.09.2022 and 10.10.2024 are not legal and are set aside. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.5497/Del/2024 6 Order pronounced in the open court on 22/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25/04/2025 Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to - 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi "