IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5891/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14)

Appellant by : Shri Ryan Saldhana,AR Respondent by : Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Date of Hearing 03.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated

22.09.2025 is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 21.09.2022 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

1) The Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay on 288 days in filing the appeal despite the fact that:

 The assessee was not aware that such Penalty Order was passed on

21.09.2022.

 The assessee does not regularly access her email id.

 The assessee is a metric layperson and she had no knowledge of the technicalities of income tax proceedings.

 The assessee's Chartered Accountant did not give proper advice to her.

2) The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the Penalty Order passed u/s

271(1)(c) of the Act and levying penalty of Rs 33,11,220/- despite the fact that:

 Assessee did not file her return of income since she was not aware of the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961.

 There was no deliberate concealment of income.

3. In the instant case, the assessee had not filed her return of income for the year. Her case was re-opened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of information available as NMS (Non- Filers of return) as per ITBA system. From the ‘NMS’ data, it was seen that although the assessee had not filed her return of income, yet she had carried out certain financial transactions i.e. Rental income of Rs 27,83,236/-,Payment to Contractor of Rs 84,99,352/-.In absence of any compliance, the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act determining the total income at Rs.1,12,82,588/- treating the above amounts as undisclosed income. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income. However, the assessee did not file any reply in response to the notices issued on various dates. Also, it was seen from the system data that assessee had not filed appeal before the CIT(A). Thus, in the absence of any compliance, it was concluded that the assessee had nothing to submit with respect to levy of penalty .Accordingly, minimum penalty of Rs.33,11,220/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied.

4. The subsequent appeal before the ld.CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 288 days who did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal observing that there was substantial delay in filing the appeal. He noted that the appellant was engaged in business activity and had significant business receipts as well as taxable income during the year. Any person carrying on business and earning substantial income was expected to be aware of their statutory obligation to file a return of income within the prescribed time, irrespective of the educational qualification. Ignorance of law could not be accepted as a valid excuse for non-compliance with statutory provisions.

5. Before us, the ld.AR has admitted that the appeal was filed late before the ld.CIT(A).In this regard, a condonation application has been filed claiming that the assessee is an old lady and was not aware of the fact that ex-parte penalty order was passed. She did not access her email id on regular basis. The assessee is matric passed and has no knowledge of Income Tax. Only in August 2023, she came to know that the assessment order was passed in her case by invoking the provisions of section 144 of the Act. However, the ld.CIT(A) did not give any relief and dismissed the appeal in limine. It is humbly requested to condone the delay in filing penalt