2022 (9) TMI 875

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.5,000/- levied by the AO u/s 271F of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the AO levied penalty without considering the written submission filed by the assessee on 18-03-2019, in compliance of show cause notice dated 6-03-2019 while the AO had specifically mentioned in the penalty order that no compliance was made.'' 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 35days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee in his condonation application dated 9th March, 2022 prayed to condone the delay on the ground that the appeal was filed by the then consultant of the assessee against the penalty order passed by the AO u/s 271F who mentioned his own e-mai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mply a pedantic approach. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an evenhanded manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. "When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay." Keeping in view the present facts and circumstances of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TO, Ward 5(1) imposed penalty vide order dated 19-03-2019 amounting to Rs. 5,000/- u/s 271F. 3.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ''I have gone through the appellant's submission and the penalty order u/s 271F. 1. Regarding Ground No. (1), it is withdrawn by appellant. Hence Ground No. (1) does not require any adjudication. 2. Regarding Ground No. (3), it is in general nature does not require any adjudication. 3. Regarding Ground No. (2), it is clearly mentioned in the penalty order as below. ''The assessee required to file the return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 on or before 31-07-2011 u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act and there....