RALLIS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 8035/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2023-24

Rallis India Limited, 23th Assistant Commissioner of Floor, Vios Tower, Off Eastern Income Tax, 8(1)(1), Aayakar Freeway, New Cuffee Parade, Vs. Bhawan, Churchgate, Mumbai – Mumbai - 400037. 400020. PAN NO. AABCR 2657 N Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Darshit Naik a/w Mr. Shubhay Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Londhe – SR DR.

: 07/08/2026 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 13/08/2026

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.07.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘the learned CIT(A)’], for the assessment year 2023-24, whereby the appeal preferred by the assessee against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’] came to be dismissed in limine on a technical ground.

Rallis India Limited 2 ITA No. 8035/MUM/2026

2.1 The assessment was thereafter completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, determining the total income at ₹1,77,31,52,560/-. The variation comprised, inter alia, an addition of ₹4,30,04,000/- on account of excess claim of provision for doubtful debts and an addition of ₹6,76,000/- treating dividend income as income from other sources under section 56 of the Act. Consequent thereto, penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act were initiated in respect of the addition of ₹4,30,04,000/-, alleging under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income.

2.2 The assessee carried the assessment order in appeal before the learned CIT(A), which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2025. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice dated 29.09.2025 proposing levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. After considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that the case fell within the ambit of under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income and, accordingly, levied penalty at the rate of 200 per cent of the tax payable on such under-reported income, amounting to ₹2,16,46,494/-.

Rallis India Limited 3 ITA No. 8035/MUM/2026

2.3 Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 26.03.2026, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). In Form No. 35, however, while specifying the section under which the impugned order had been passed, the assessee inadvertently mentioned section “270” instead of section “270A” of the Act. The learned CIT(A), noticing the said discrepancy, did not examine the challenge to the penalty on merits. Instead, he dismissed the appeal in limine holding that the error in mentioning section 270 was a substantive and non-curable defect, since section 270 stood omitted from the statute with effect from 01.04.1989 and, consequently, no order under that provision could have existed. The learned CIT(A) further observed that the error went to the root of the maintainability of the appeal and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal without admitting the same, though liberty was granted to the assessee to file a fresh appeal in Form No. 35 against the correct order and seek condonation of delay, if required. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) read as under: -

“2. On perusal of Form No. 35, it has been noted that under the major heading "Order against which Appeal is filed" at Sr. No. 2(a) against "2. Details of the order appealed against "a. Section and sub-section of the Income-tax Act, 1961", the appellant has mentioned section "270" of the Act and date of the order has been migtioned as 26.03.2026. On examination of facts available on record, it has come to light that "Penalty order u/s 270A" has been passed by the AO on 26.03.2026 for the AY 2023-24 in the appellant's case. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant has committed an error in quoting the section. The error is a non-curable defect as there is no order u/s 270 available in the appellant's case,

Rallis India Limited 4 ITA No. 8035/MUM/2026

2.1 It is pertinent to note that section 270 stands omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01.04.1989. So there cannot be an order u/s 270 of the Act. 2.2 It is settled legal requirement that for institution of a valid appeal, the order appealed against must be dearly, correctly and specifically identified by mentioning the correct section, sub-section & dause, DIN and date of the order. Appellate jurisdiction can be exercised only in respect of a definite and identifiable order passed under the provisions of the Act. In the present case, the appellant has apparently failed to mention the correct section in the Form No. 35 and instead has quoted a deleted section. The particulars furnished in the appeal memo, therefore, do not correctly identify the order sought to be challenged and create ambiguity regarding the exact order against which the appeal has been preferred. 2.3 The lack of mention of the correct "section" under which the order has been passed goes to the very root of maintainability of the appeal, as the appellate authority derives jurisdiction only upon a valid appeal instituted against a correctly identifiable order. Since the order passed u/s 270, as mentioned in Form No. 35, is not borne qut from the records and no order exists u/s 270 for the AY 2023-24 passed on 25.03.2026, the appeal filled by the appellant suffers from a substantive defect rendering the same invalid and non-maintainable. 2.4 In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the present appeal is technically defective and, therefore, is not maintainable in law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine without being admitted. However, the appellant is at liberty to file a fresh appeal in Form No. 35, against the correct order by mentioning the correct date, DIN, section and sub-section under which the order has been passed by the AO, in accordance with law. The appellant may seek condonation of delay, if so required.” 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the error in mentioning section 270 instead of section 270A was purely inadvertent and arose while selecting the relevant provision from the drop-down menu in Form No. 35. It was submitted that there was no ambiguity whatsoever as to the order against which the appeal had been preferred. The penalty order dated 26.03.2026 under section 270A was specifically challenged and detailed submissions on the merits of the penalty had also been furnished

Rallis India Limited 5 ITA No. 8035/MUM/2026

before the learned CIT(A). A copy of such submission has been placed in the paper book at pages 226 to 239.

4.1. On consideration of the record, we find that the error in mentioning section 270 was plainly inadvertent. The impugned order was specifically identifiable by its date, assessment year and subject matter, and, more importantly, the submissions filed before the learned CIT(A) clearly demonstrate that the assessee was contesting the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act. Thus, there was no ambiguity either as to the order under challenge or the grievance raised by the assessee.

4.2 In such circumstances, the mistake in Form No. 35 was a curable procedural defect and ought not to have resulted in dismissal of the appeal without affording the assessee an opportunity to rectify the same. The learned CIT(A), instead of dismissing the appeal on this technical ground, ought to have

Rallis India Limited 6 ITA No. 8035/MUM/2026

permitted rectification of the Form and thereafter adjudicated the appeal on merits.

4.3 We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to afford the assessee an opportunity to rectify Form No. 35 and, upon such rectification, adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the penalty levied under section 270A. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 13/08/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Rallis India Limited 7 ITA No. 8035/MUM/2026

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai