Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Punjab National Bank, preferred an appeal against the order of the NFAC which arose from a penalty order under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14. The assessee also sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and then proceeding to decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and re-adjudicate the issue on merit.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned by the CIT(A) and whether the penalty imposed under Section 271C was justified.
Sections Cited
271C, 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY
The instant appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the Penalty Order dated 17.06.2021 passed by Addl.CIT, Range 76, New Delhi under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following gounds:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by the appellant. It is prayed that delay in filling of the case be condoned and the appeal be adjudicated.
That without prejudice to ground no 1 above & on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred on merit of the case in confirming the penalty under section 271C of Rs. 14,92,69,054/-.
3. That Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, rearrange, renumbered vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.”
2. It appears that the CIT(A) is failed to condone the delay in appeal but without prejudice has also dismissed the appeal on merit. The approach so adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) is manifestly against the mandate of jurisprudence because unless the delay is condoned there cannot be any scope for adjudicating on merit. The assessee being a public sector bank requires full sympathetic consideration for condonation of delay as malafide intention can be ascribed in such acts. Accordingly, we direct the delay be condoned by the CIT(A) u/s 249(3) thereafter he is directed to readjudicate the issue on merit after giving proper opportunity to the assessee.
The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2025