Damyanti Atul Shah v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward – 20(1)(1)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Damyanti Atul Shah, did not file her income tax return for the year in question. Her case was re-opened by the Income Tax Department under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on information from the Non-Filers of return (NMS) data. The assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Act, determining her total income at Rs. 1,12,82,588/- and treating certain amounts as undisclosed income. A penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied for concealment of income. The assessee did not file any reply to the notices issued and did not appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 33,11,220/- was levied. The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 288 days, which was dismissed by the CIT(A) for substantial delay.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay of 288 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.
• 2. Whether the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) should be upheld.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Bina Ghosh vs Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• Suresh Chand v. ITO Ward 4(1)

  Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Lakhubhai Nathubhai Sisodiya vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Kalpana Nitin Shah Vs. ITO 19(2)(2)

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2011-12Partly Allowed

• Jaykrishna Developers Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO, Ward 2(3)

• C & S Electric Limited vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

  Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi benchAY 2015-16Allowed