STANFORD LABORATORIES PVT LTD,DELHI V. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22(2), DELHI

ITA 5296/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting a penalty of INR 1,39,44,461 imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The penalty was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) despite the appellant's appeal being filed 538 days late, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The appellant argued that the delay was due to a change of address, leading to the penalty order being unserved until a later date when a certified copy was obtained. The ITAT found merit in the appellant's arguments, noting the ongoing quantum appeal and the vagueness of the penalty notice, and thus allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23863 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITI GUPTA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 250; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5296/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Stanford Laboratories Pvt.Ltd., 5th Floor, Caddie Commercial Tower at Aerocity, Dial, IGI Airport South-West Delhi New Delhi-110037 PAN-AABCS3288A vs DCIT Circle-22(2) New Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2025 ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking to assail the First Appellate order dated 24.09.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] under s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 14.12.2016 passed under s. 144/143(3) of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2014-15. 2. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, the present appeal seeks to impugn the first appellate order wherein penalty imposed by the AO under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to INR 1,39,44,461/- has been confirmed by the CIT(A) on the ground that the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed belatedly by 538 days. The CIT(A) has declined the condonation of delay of 538 days and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without evaluating the merits. ITA No.5296/Del/2024 Page | 2 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee adverted to the prayer for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) wherein it was pointed out that the penalty order passed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO dated 27.06.2017 was served on the old address whereas the assessee has shifted to the new address. To support the factum of change of address, the assessee referred the appeal filed before the CIT(A) in quantum proceedings wherein new address has been mentioned. The penalty order thus remained unserved due to change of address. The assessee eventually obtained the certified copy of the penalty order from the AO by filing a letter dated 13.05.2022 and filed the appeal thereafter. 4. The assessee thus contends that sufficient cause for condonation of delay owing to bonafides impliedly exists in the present circumstances. 5. The assessee further points out that the quantum appeal is pending before the CIT(A) and therefore the penalty ought not to have been confirmed by the CIT(A) without taking cognizance of outcome of quantum proceedings. The assessee also contends that the notice issued under s. 271(1)(c) is vague and therefore, the penalty is not sustainable even otherwise. 6. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that traces of bonafides do exists for belated filing of penalty appeal before the CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal cannot be treated as willful in the circumstances as asserted on behalf of the assessee. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) thus deserves to be condoned. Hence, the matter is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication of penalty on merits afresh in accordance with law. 7. The assessee will be at liberty to raise all points and adduce such evidences as may be considered expedient to justify its stance on the subject matter of dispute. 8. In the light of delineation made, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.5296/Del/2024 Page | 3 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "