SHIV ARORA,DELHI V. ITO WARD-63(1), DELHI

ITA 3091/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shiv Arora, the appellant, contesting a penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) following an ex-parte assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially upheld by the CIT(A) despite a significant delay in filing the appeal, which was nearly 10 months late. The primary contention in the appeal to the Tribunal was the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay and the validity of the penalty following the setting aside of the assessment order in a separate quantum appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, leading to the quashing of the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781268 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: PUJA ROHTAGI
• Keywords: Set aside; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 3091/Del/2025 Shiv Arora Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3091/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Sh. Shiv Arora Shop No. 7, Kaushalya Bhawan, Chappal Market, Sadar Bazar, Dehi-110006 PAN:AFRPA2450C Vs ITO Ward-63(1) Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Ms. Puja Rohtagi, CA Revenue by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 21/03/2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an ex-parte assessment order came to be passed on 23/04/2024 u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Consequent to the additions made thereon, a penalty proceedings has been initiated against the Assessee and an order of Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3091/Del/2025 Shiv Arora Vs. ITO penalty came to be passed on 18/01/2022 under Section 271AAC (1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 18/01/2022, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of nearly 10 months in filing the First Appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 21/03/2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee for delay in latches. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 21/03/2025, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in not condoning the delay in filing the Appeal and also submitted that, the very assessment order dated 23/04/2024 has been set aside by the Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum Appeal, therefore, the order of the penalty thereupon cannot survive. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the Appeal has not condoned the delay in filing the Appeal. It was the case of the Assessee that the Assessee has sufficient cause to condone the delay. Apart from the same, it is a matter of record that the assessment order has been set Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3091/Del/2025 Shiv Arora Vs. ITO aside by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 19/02/2025 and the matter has been remanded to the file of the A.O. for framing de-novo assessment. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condoned the delay in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and observe that as the order of assessment itself has been set aside, the consequential penalty order cannot survive. It is for the A.O. to initiate fresh penalty proceedings in accordance with law if A.O. frames assessment by making addition/s during the second round of assessment. Accordingly, the order of penalty dated 18/01/2022 which has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order impugned is hereby quashed. 6. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th October, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 24 .10.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3091/Del/2025 Shiv Arora Vs. ITO Printed from counselvise.com "