M/S. RAJKUMAR FUELS, TIRNELVELI,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, TIRUNELVELI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ◌, लेखा सद� के सम% Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 253/Chny/2026 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Rajkamal Fuels, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of No. 200F, Tiruchendur Road, Income Tax, Palayamkottai, Circle -1, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu – 627 002. Tirunelveli. [PAN: AAQFR-8678-D] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*थ(/Respondent) अपीलाथ( की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Vishnu Sumanth, Advocate )*थ( की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Swarnalatha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 22.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.08.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-18, for the assessment year 2017-18.

:-2-: ITA No: 253/Chny/2026

u/s. 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) for non-

compliance of provisions u/s. 270AA of the Act. We note that the AO

issued notice of demand dated 28.11.2009 u/s. 156 of the Act requiring

the assessee to pay an amount of Rs.1,91,679/-. The assessee replied

vide submissions dated 20.02.2020 stating that the said payment

containing in notice of demand u/s. 156 of the Act was paid. On an

examination of the Form no.68 uploaded by the assessee, the AO found

the said payment was made on 24.01.2020 beyond the period of 30 days

specified in the demand notice. Accordingly, for non-compliance of

conditions contemplated in section 270AA of the Act, the AO imposed penalty of Rs.2,78,100/- u/s. 270A of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed

the same.

decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Natarajan

Anandh Kumar reported in (2024) 159 Taxmann.com 637 and submits that the Hon’ble High Court condoned the delay of 30 days in filing the

application for immunity for imposition of penalty. He argued that the

:-3-: ITA No: 253/Chny/2026

facts in the present case are similar to the facts before Hon’ble High

Court and prayed to condone the delay.

ld.CIT(A).

note that the date of notice of demand u/s. 156 of the Act is 28.11.2019

and the assessee has to pay said demand of amount within 30 days from

the date of issue of said demand notice. Admittedly, the AO mentioned

that the period of 30 days to be complied by paying demanded amount u/s. 156 of the Act and the assessee paid such amount on 24.01.2020

with a delay of 28 days. Further, the assessee filed immunity application

in Form-68 on 11.03.200 which is evident from page no.3 of the

impugned order. We find, in order to get exemption from imposition of

penalty, sub-section (2) of section 270AA of the Act deals that the

immunity application is required to be filed within one month from the end of the month in which the order referred to in clause (a) of sub-

section (1) of section 270AA of the Act was issued. We find the in

present case that the assessee required to file the immunity application

:-4-: ITA No: 253/Chny/2026

in Form-68 within 30 days from the date of issuance of demand notice

u/s. 156 of the Act, but however the assessee discharged the tax liability

beyond 30 days i.e. on 24.01.2020. Therefore, there is a delay in

discharging the tax liability as well as filing of Form-68. Further, it is

noted that there is a delay of 102 days in filing Form 68 seeking immunity

from initiating penalty proceedings. On careful reading of the decision

of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Natarajan Anandh Kumar

(Supra), wherein it clearly held that when the assessee discharged its

tax liability which was accepted by the revenue, it is a fit case to condone

the delay therein in filing the application for immunity from imposing

penalty. We find as discussed above, the delay of 102 days in the present case and the facts and circumstances of the case are similar to

the facts before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of

Natarajan Anandh Kumar (Supra). Therefore, respectfully following the

same, we direct the AO to condone the delay of 102 days and accept

her Form in 68. In view of our decision in directing the AO to condone

the delay and accept application, the order of the ld.CIT(A) in confirming the penalty imposed u/s. 270A of the Act becomes infructuous and it is

set aside. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

:-5-: ITA No: 253/Chny/2026

Order pronounced on 03rd August, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 03.08.2026 JPV आदेश की )ितिलिप अ0ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ(/Appellant, 2.)*थ(/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु1/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय )ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड& फाईल/GF

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.08.06 10:05:16 +05'30'