SH. DARSHAN SINGH,ALWAR V. ITO, WARD-1(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

ITA 742/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sh. Darshan Singh, an agriculturist from Alwar, who appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Alwar, concerning penalties and an assessment order for the year 2011-12. The primary legal issue was the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the validity of penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that he was unaware of the proceedings and did not receive the notice under section 148 of the Act, which was crucial for the penalties. The tribunal considered the affidavit and the circumstances leading to the delay, ultimately deciding in favor of the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772139 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: P.C. PARWAL; SPEED POST
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Period of limitation
• Section: 148; 271(1)(c)

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 Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 742/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sh. Darshan Singh S/o Sh. Amir Singh Vill- Vijwa, Ramgarh, Taluka Ramgarh, Alwar. cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Alwar. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: DGPPS4020E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR. lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 21/08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 25/08/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Condonation of Delay Present appeal came to be presented on 05.05.2025. As per deficiency note raised by the Registry came to be filed 370 days after the prescribed period of limitation. The appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 742/JPR/2025 Sh. Darshan Singh, Alwar. 2. First of all, arguments have been advanced on the application seeking condonation of delay. File perused. 3. While referring to the averments in the application accompanied by the affidavit of the applicant, Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the assessee had engaged Shri Abhinav Gupta, Chartered Accountant (C.A.) for the purpose of filing of appeal before CIT(A), but, the impugned order passed in the quantum proceeding could not come to his notice. Ld. AR has further submitted that subsequently on 20.02.2025, the Assessing Officer passed penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), and it was at that time, the C. A browsed e-filing portal i.e. in the first week of March, 2025, and came to know about passing of the impugned order dt. 02.02.2024. Accordingly, Ld. AR has prayed for condonation of delay. 4. Ld. DR for the department has opposed the prayer for condonation of delay on the aforesaid ground, by submitting that it has become a trend to shift the burden to the Chartered Accountant(s) for the delay, and then to seek condonation of delay on the said ground. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 742/JPR/2025 Sh. Darshan Singh, Alwar. 5. The fact remains that the affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay has gone unchallenged. Furthermore, when the assessee has attributed negligence to the C.A. engaged for the purpose of filing of appeal before Learned CIT(A), he having not informed the assessee about the passing of the impugned order, we deem it a fit case to allow the prayer for condonation of delay. On merits 6. Ld. AR has referred to the paper book submitted before the Registry on 18.07.2025, and then to the copies of order dated 15.02.2023, available at page 27 to 31, and pointed out that vide both said orders, penalty orders relating to the assessment year 2011-12, and passed u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act, concerning the assessee, were set aside by Learned CIT(A) while appreciating the plea of the appellant raised therein that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was ever received. A perusal of the orders dated 15.02.2023 would reveal that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, relating to the same assessment year, was set aside while observing in the manner:- “3.2 The appellant pleads that no notice u/s 148 of the act was ever received by him and as he was not aware of any proceedings. 3.3 The argument appears reasor able and hence acceptable. The appellant is an agriculturist in a village and presumption of receipt of notice cannot be made in the given facts. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 742/JPR/2025 Sh. Darshan Singh, Alwar. 3.4 The appeal is hence allowed and penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is hence deleted.” A perusal of another order dated 15.02.2023 would reveal that the penalty levied u/s 271F of the Act, relating to the same assessment year, was set aside while observing in the manner as: “4.2 The appellant pleads that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was even received by him and as he was not aware of any proceedings. 4.3 The argument appears reasonable and hence acceptable. The appellant is an agriculturist in a village and presumption of receipt of notice cannot be made in the given facts. It may further be noted that other than imputed income u/s 148 of the Act. No other source of income has been shown by which it can be said that appellant was liable to file return. 4.4 The appeal is hence allowed and penalty u/s 271F of the Act is hence deleted.” 7. Learned DR for the department has referred to the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), wherein, while dealing with ground no. 1, as regards service of notice u/s 148 of the Act, Learned CIT(A) observed that as per remand report received from the Assessing Officer notice u/s 148 of the Act was duly served upon the appellant on 28.03.2018, by dispatching to the appellant by Speed Post. 8. There is no dispute about the abovesaid observation in the impugned order while dealing with ground No.1 raised before First Appellate Authority. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 742/JPR/2025 Sh. Darshan Singh, Alwar. As noticed above, penalty orders came to be set aside by Learned CIT(A) vide order dated 15.02.2023. It appears that copies of the said two orders were not made available to Learned CIT(A), who passed the impugned order subsequently, on 2.2.2024, relating to quantum proceedings, otherwise, he would have thrown light and discussed factum of service of non service of notice under section 148 of the Act. From the two orders dated 15.2.2023, setting aside the penalties, it does not transpire if the CIT(A) was referring to the notice under section 148 of the Act served by post or on email ID. The fact remains that the penalty orders came to be set aside on the ground that the appellant being an agriculturist in the village, no presumption of service of notice under section 148 of the Act could be made. There is nothing on record to suggest that the department challenged the orders dated 15.02.2023, vide which penalty orders were set aside on the aforesaid grounds. In the given facts, and having regard to the setting aside of the penalties on the aforesaid ground, no reliance can be placed on the Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 742/JPR/2025 Sh. Darshan Singh, Alwar. findings recorded by Learned CIT(A), while passing the impugned order, about service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In view of the above discussion, impugned order vide which assessment order dated 06.11.2018, has been upheld, deserves to be set aside. Result 9. Consequently, this appeal is allowed on the only legal ground raised before us by Ld. AR for the appellant. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/08/2025. ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25/08/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Sh. Darshan Singh, Alwar. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(3), Alwar. 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 No. 742/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "