KIRAN BHIMANI,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH "SMC", SURAT Before: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member

ITA No. 1424/SRT/2025 & ITA No. 1425/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kiran Bhimani, Vs D.C.I.T., 103, Samrat Avenue, Honey Circle-1(3), park Road, Adajan, Surat. Surat-395009 (Gujarat) PAN: AFLPB 8679 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented by : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, A.R. Revenue Represented by : Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 05/05/2026 Date of pronouncement : 21/07/2026 आदेश/ORDER PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM: 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short, ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] both dated 31/07/2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2019-20. In ITA No. 1424/Srt/2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts. 1.1 Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the penalty order passed by the AO is illegal, invalid and liable to be quashed.

2 ITA No. 1424 & 1425/Srt/2025 Kiran Bhimani Vs DCIT 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in laws in confirming the action of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 4,47,482/- invoking the provision of section 270A read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty on the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- despite the fact that the alleged amount has already been declared by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act and the same was accepted by the AO in the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act and no adverse inference or variation has been made by the AO in the amount disclosed by the assessee. 4. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty ignoring the factual metrics that there is no variation between income assessed and income returned for donation amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/-. Even no SCN was issued for proposed variation while completing assessment. (ii) That the above said penalty has been confirmed ignoring the fact that there is no malafide intention of the assessee for not making the disallowance and hence, no penalty is leviable. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied despite the fact that the notice issued by AO under section 270A read with section 274 of the Act does not specify the charge mentioned under specified clauses of section 270A(9) of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty despite the fact that there is neither misreporting of income nor under-reporting of income. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied by the AO ignoring the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such mere addition/disallowance does not lead to levy of penalty 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act despite the fact that no finding has been given on merit regarding underreporting of income in the order passed by the AO."

3 ITA No. 1424 & 1425/Srt/2025 Kiran Bhimani Vs DCIT 2. It is found from perusal of the record that there is a delay of 84 days each in filing these appeals before this Tribunal and the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay mentioning the facts as under: "I, the undersigned, Kiran Bhimanl, the petitioner have to state following facts of my case w.r.t. my prayer for condonation of delay for filing of appeal against the dismissal order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 31- 07-2025 for A.Y. 2019-20 w.r.t. levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(b) as well as 270A of the act by the AO: 1. That both CIT appeal orders for A. Y. 2019-20 is dated 31-07- 2025 has been served electronically through portal. Therefore, it is presume to be served on 31-07-2025. Appeal is file with the registry, ITAT, Surat on 15-12-2025, which is late by -77-days. 2 That in both appeals the appellant has given his e-mail Id as "kiran.bhimani79@gmail.com. But order was not served neither on email nor physically. Service of CIT appeal through ITBA portal was not in the knowledge of the appellant or his CA who filed 1st appeal for the appellant. In the month of December, 2025, a clerk in the office of the CA was visited ITBA portal in order to verify status of appeal cases of his clients. Therefore, appeal before Hon'ble ITAT is delayed by -77-days due to the said reason. As soon as the fact of appeal order comes to the knowledge, the appellant has made payment of ITAT appeal fees in both cases on 06-12-2025. As a result, delay occurred. 3 In above circumstances there is a delay of-77- days have been occurred but it is neither wilful nor deliberate but due to the above circumstances. It is further to submit that I have not been benefited by filling of late appeal. On the contrary, I am carrying out huge burden of Income Tax, interest, penalty, etc. on my shoulders.

4 ITA No. 1424 & 1425/Srt/2025 Kiran Bhimani Vs DCIT 4. Honorable Apex Court, High Courts and ITATs of our country have ever taken liberal views in the matter of condonation of delay in filing of appeal in light of sufficient cause. It is the philosophy of taxing laws that " None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority found that litigant deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of appeal. Reliance is placed on A Bombay High Court Judgement in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT, Reported in 398 ITR 250. 5 It is also settled law that substantial justice could not be denied underground of mere technicalities. Reliance is placed on a judgments of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katji & Ors reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 has held as under: "(i.) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (ii.) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (iii.) "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. (iv.) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

5 ITA No. 1424 & 1425/Srt/2025 Kiran Bhimani Vs DCIT (v.) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. (vi.) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 6. Considering the facts of my case as well as the law on the issue, it is humbly submitted that there was no malafide intention or deliberate delay in filing the present appeal. So, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing the present appeal of-77- days may please be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. It is further submitted that there is no prejudice which will be caused to the department if the delay is condoned. It is, therefore, once again humbly prayed that this Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 77- days in filing the appeal and hear the case on merits in order to render justice." The assessee has also stated that the delay in filing appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the appeals within the prescribed time. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing of these two appeals. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR did not raise any serious objection if the delay in filing of the appeals be condoned.

6 ITA No. 1424 & 1425/Srt/2025 Kiran Bhimani Vs DCIT 4. Considering the contents made in the condonation application, the delay of 84 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal are condoned and the appeals are admitted. 5. Facts of the case in brief, are that the scrutiny assessment in this case was completed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 and also r.w.s 144(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 11/11/2024 on a total income of ₹ 20,47,390/- by accepting the income returned by the assessee in the return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act wherein the assessee has not claimed deduction under Section 80GGC of the Act amounting to ₹ 7,00,000/- and this is the reason for reopening of the assessment. Since the assessee has underreported his income in consequence of misreporting thereof, penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act were initiated by issuing of show cause notice dated 11/11/2024 asking the assessee to submit its response on or before 24/11/2024. In response to that the assessee vide his reply dated 15/11/2024 and 09/12/2024 requested the Assessing Officer to waive the penalty as he has already submitted the necessary documents which were called for from him. Thereafter, two show cause notices under Section 270A of the Act dated 11/11/2024 and 25/11/2024 were issued by the

7 ITA No. 1424 & 1425/Srt/2025 Kiran Bhimani Vs DCIT Assessing Officer asking the assessee to explain as to why penalty under Section 270A of the Act should not be imposed on him for underreporting of income inconsequence to misreporting thereof. Again the assessee stated the same that all necessary documents have already been submitted and therefore, penalty initiated under Section 270A of the Act may be dropped. The Assessing Officer after giving due consideration of facts and evidences on record, imposed a penalty of ₹ 4,47,482/- under Section 270A(8) @ 200% of the underreported income which stood at ₹ 7.00 lacs. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated 31/07/2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: "5.5 The above written submission filed by appellant have been carefully perused and found not acceptable. It is an admitted fact that appellant's claim of deduction u/s 80GGC of the I.T. Act of Rs.7,00,000/- is bogus claim which has been accepted by the appellant in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act by withdrawing this claim. In my considered opinion appellant has underreported his income within the meaning of sub-clause (a) of sub-sec (2) of sec. 270A of the I.T. Act wherein it is clearly stated that A person shall be considered to have underreported his income if(a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 143. In the instant case

8 ITA No. 1424 & 1425/Srt/2025 Kiran Bhimani Vs DCIT income determined in the return processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act is of Rs.13,42,120/- whereas the assessed income as per assessment order u/s 147 of the I.T. Act is at Rs.20,47,390/-. Further as per sec.270A(3) (i) (a) of the I.T. Act the difference between the amount of income assessed and the amount of income returned under clause (a) of sub. sec. (1) of sec.143 of the I.T. Act shall be the amount of underreported income. Thus in the instant case the underreported income is Rs.7,00,000/- being the amount of bogus donation claimed. 5.6 Therefore various contentions raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal are not tenable. The case laws relied upon by appellant are not applicable to the instant case for the reason that either the same is not of the jurisdictional ITAT and hence not having binding precedents and / or the same are distinguishable on the facts of the instant case. I therefore confirm the impugned order passed by AO u/s 270A of the I.T. Act imposing penalty of Rs. 4,47,482/-. The ground of appeal raised by appellant thus stand dismissed." 7. Further aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the appellant's counsel that the appellant has made a genuine donation of ₹ 7.00 lacs during the relevant financial year, although, he was eligible to claim a deduction for this donation under Section 80GGB/GGC of the Act, he consciously chose not to do so in his return of income filed under Section 148 of the Act solely to maintain the peace of mind. He further submitted that the donation was made with

9 ITA No. 1424 & 1425/Srt/2025 Kiran Bhimani Vs DCIT genuine intention and not benefited by any tax benefit considerations. He had already submitted his explanation and necessary documents before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, there is no underreporting or misreporting of income. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, may be deleted. The appellant also produced following decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT in support of his claim that the penalty under Section 270A of the Act is not imposable in his case: (i) Amrish Somabhai Desai Vs ITO ITA No. 1751 & 1752/Ahd/2025 order dated 10/04/2026. (ii) DD Target PMT Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA No. 2773 to 2776/Del/2024 order dated 17/01/2025

10 ITA No. 1424 & 1425/Srt/2025 Kiran Bhimani Vs DCIT ITA No. 1425/Srt/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 12. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessment was completed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 and r.w.s 144B of the Act for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 09/10/2024 on a total income of ₹ 20,47,390/-. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 15/05/2024 and 14/08/2024. However, the assessee, though, filed his reply in response to the notice on 14/08/2024 but has not responded to the notice dated 15/05/2024 and therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 15/05/2024. Finally, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act due to non- compliance by the assessee on the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 15/05/2024. 13. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the same ground that the assessee did not make any compliance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 15/05/2024 and held that the appellant has committed default within the meaning of provisions of Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act.

11 ITA No. 1424 & 1425/Srt/2025 Kiran Bhimani Vs DCIT 14. Further aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 15. Before us, the appellant's counsel submitted that the appellant has already made compliance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 14/08/2024 and submitted all necessary documents and therefore, the appellant thought that since all the material have already been produced before the Assessing Officer for the purpose of making assessment, there is no need to respond separately for the another notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee was in a bonafide belief that necessary compliance has already been made under Section 142(1) of the Act. The appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of Amrish Somabhai Desai Vs ITO ITA No. 1751 & 1752/Ahd/2025 order dated 10/04/2026 wherein the Tribunal has already deleted the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act on similar ground in similar cases. 16. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 17. We have considered the rival submissions and also considered the decision of the Coordinate Bench, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case where penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act is

12 ITA No. 1424 & 1425/Srt/2025 Kiran Bhimani Vs DCIT imposable as the assessee had already made necessary compliance before the Assessing Officer and submitted all the required details before him for the purpose of framing of assessment. We, therefore, delete the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 18. In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order is pronounced under the provisions of Rule 34 of IT(AT) Rules, 1963 on 21/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Dated 21/07/2026 *Ranjan आदेश�ȧĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/ Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT 6. Guard file. By order/आदेशसे,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����, सूरत