NAVNEET SATYANARAYAN TODI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2832/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to verify the date of service of the penalty order and, if within limitation, adjudicate the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) against a penalty order was dismissed as time-barred. The assessee claimed the penalty order was served later than the date mentioned, but provided no documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was barred by limitation due to lack of documentary evidence regarding the service date of the penalty order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya
For Respondent: Shri Ankit Agarwal, SR. AR
Hearing: 13.07.2026Pronounced: 27.07.2026

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”) for the Assessment Year 2016–17, arising from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee filed against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 24.09.2022 on the ground that the appeal was

ITA No.2832/M/2026 Navneet Satyanaryan Todi barred by limitation. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee contended that the penalty order had been served upon him only on 02.06.2023 and, therefore, the appeal filed on 26.06.2023 was within the prescribed period of limitation. However, no documentary evidence was furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate the said contention. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the appeal was time-barred and dismissed the same without adjudicating the issues on merits.

3.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. It was submitted that although the penalty order is dated 24.09.2022, the same was actually served upon the assessee only on 02.06.2023 and the appeal was filed on 26.06.2023, i.e., within the period prescribed under the Act reckoned from the date of service of the order. The Ld. AR therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee and that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

4.

The Ld. AR has also submitted the chronology of events as following:-

Sr. No. Particulars Date 1 Self-Assessment Tax Paid 22.03.2021 2 Notice issued u/s 148 of the Act 27.03.2021 3 Return filed u/s 148 of the Act 19.04.2021 4 Assessment Order u/s 147 09.03.2022 5 Penalty Order u/s 271(1)(c) 24.09.2022 6 Date of service of Penalty Order 02.06.2023 7 Date of filing appeal before CIT(A) 26.06.2023 8 CIT(A) Order u/s 250 04.02.2026

ITA No.2832/M/2026 Navneet Satyanaryan Todi 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had asserted that the penalty order was served upon him on 02.06.2023 but did not place any documentary evidence on record to substantiate the said claim. In the absence of such evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) treated the appeal as barred by limitation and dismissed the same.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file. The Ld. CIT(A) shall verify the assessee's contention regarding the date of service of the penalty order. If the appeal is found to be within the prescribed period of limitation, the Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all relevant documents and evidences as may be called for by the Ld. CIT(A)

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JAGADISH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 27/07/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary

ITA No.2832/M/2026 Navneet Satyanaryan Todi Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T. By order

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →