DILIP JAGANNATH SAMANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5638/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 November 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SMT.BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication, considering that the quantum appeal was still pending. This was done to address the rejection of the appeal by the CIT(A) without condoning the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file the return of income for AY 2017-18. The AO reopened the case due to a sale transaction of immovable property and completed the assessment, levying penalty. The appeal before CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 261 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 270A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI & SMT.RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri S C Agrawal
For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR
Hearing: 18.11.2025Pronounced: 24.11.2025

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 20.08.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows:

“Ground No.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal and not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has made an application for condonation of delay as per his application dated 16.12.2024.

1.

The quantum appeal of the appellant is not yet decided. Ground No.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in imposing penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, Rs.1261200/-without appreciating the fact that:- 1. The appellant has not misreported / under reported any income. Ground No.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty Rs.1261200/- without appreciating the fact that:- 1. The appellant has sold the room on 26.07.2001 and received the consideration of Rs.320000/- The agreement is registered on 07.12.2016. The A.O. has added Rs.2702000/- (3022000-320000) The appellant has not misreported / under reported any income. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. From the information available on the Insight Portal of the IT department, it was noted by ld. AO that the assessee had entered into a sale transaction of an immovable property for Rs. 3,20,000/- as against the stamp duty value (SDV) of Rs. 30,22,0000/-.

On this ground, the case was reopened and assessment completed at Rs. 27,02,000/- vide order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 10.01.2023. Subsequently, penalty u/s. 270A was also levied amounting to Rs. 12,61,200/- vide order dated 29.02.2024.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). As the appeal was filed after a delay of 261 days, the same was dismissed in limine vide order dated 20.08.2025. Aggrieved further, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

Before us, ld. AR has submitted that the quantum appeal is still pending before ld. CIT(A). Under the circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the present appeal by not condoning the delay for which an application for condonation had been filed. He has, therefore, requested for remanding the appeal to ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR has not objected to the said proposition.

5.

After hearing both the parties, we deem it appropriate to restore the order of ld. CIT(A) back to his file for fresh adjudication alongwith quantum appeal.

6.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced in Open Court on 24.11.2025

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →