The penalty for accepting a cash loan under Section 271D is void if imposed by an incorrect authority and not substantiated by the proper ownership of the property.

ORDER

By way of present appeal, the assessee challenges the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 06/12/2023 [ for short CIT(A)] which was for the assessment year 2014-15. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the penalty order dated 25.03.2019 passed under section 271D/250/254 of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “AO”] by ACIT, Circle-02, Alwar.

2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 108 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers:

Application for condonation of delay u/s 253(5) of the I.T. Act. 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation Act in filing of appeal

Hon'ble Sir(s),

The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay of 108 days in the filling of Appeal for the following reason:

1. That the Id. CIT (Appeals) passed his order on 06.12.2023 which was served upon the email Id. ankushchoudhary07@gmail.com which is belongs to the Son of the assessee appellant Shri Ankush Choudhary.

2. That Shri Ankush Choudhary is suffering from mental trauma because of one accident happened in the family in which the 3-Year-old child of Shri Ankush Choudhary is died and Shri Ankush Choudhary Son of assessee appellant went into the Mental Trauma.

3. That assessee appellant not well aware about the Income tax provision and online proceeding and also has no email account therefore the in the income tax portal the email which is provided is belongs to his son and due to the accident as stated above, his son has not seen any email and therefore the order dated 06.12.2023 was not communicated to the assessee appellant.

4. That assessee appellant received the outstanding demand notice from the income tax department on 04.05.2024 through post and only then the knowledge of passing the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 came to the knowledge of the assessee appellant. Copy of track report of the Post is enclosed herewith.

5. That subsequently, the assessee after came to the knowledge of the order passed by the Id. CIT(A) without any further delay, filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal with delay of 108 days.

6. An Affidavit of assessee appellant is duly sworn in this regard is also enclosed herewith.

With this background, we request your honour to take stock of the situation in totality, take a lenient and human approach towards the humble assessee appellant as the delay was not intentional and due to unavoidable circumstances.

That in these circumstances we request your honor's to kindly condone the delay and oblige.

3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay. She stated that the assessee even did not represent his case before the ld. CIT(A) even after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and therefore, the assessee cannot be afford more leniency.

4. We have heard the contention of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench noted that in this case ld. CIT (Appeals) passed his order on 06.12.2023 which was served upon the email Id. ankushchoudhary07@gmail.com which was belongs to the Son of the assessee appellant Shri Ankush Choudhary. The assessee stated that Shri Ankush Choudhary is suffering from mental trauma because of one accident happened in the family in which the 3-Year-old child of Shri Ankush Choudhary died and Shri Ankush Choudhary Son of assessee appellant went into the Mental Trauma. That assessee appellant not well aware about the Income tax provision and online proceeding and also has no email account therefore the in the income tax portal the email which is provided is belongs to his son and due to the accident as stated above, his son has not seen any email and therefore the order dated 06.12.2023 was not communicated to the assessee appellant. That assessee appellant received the outstanding