M/S KAVISH PRIVATE LIMITED ,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 14 (1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1003/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 July 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the significant delay but, in the interest of natural justice, condoned the delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 493 days. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay, citing insufficient cause, and dismissed the appeal. The assessee argued that business closure due to losses and ill health of directors caused the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the appeal adjudicated on merits. Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was validly levied and within the period of limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 275,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 16.07.2026Pronounced: 16.07.2026

1 . IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. No.1003/DEL/2026 (A.Y 2014-15) M/s. Kavish Impex P. ITO Ltd., H. NO. 4165, 3rd Vs. Ward- 14 (1) Floor, Aradhya Homes, Delhi Ansal Versalia Sector- 67A, Gurgaon -122001 Haryana PAN No.AADCK4181C Appellant None Respondent Ms. Priyanka Durbey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.07.2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM

Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2014-15. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

2 . 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of penalty of Rs. 42,50,295/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is erroneous, contrary to law and liable to be deleted.

2.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty proceedings initiated pursuant to an assessment order which was barred by limitation and passed without jurisdiction, and therefore the consequent penalty proceedings are void ab initio.

3.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the impugned penalty order, which was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the penalty order is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

4.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant had neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, and hence the levy of penalty is bad in law.

5.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.

2.

At the very outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that there was a delay of 493 days in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), although a detailed application for delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) has been filed but the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld. Counsel further made a prayer before the Bench that the reasons for

3 . condonation may kindly be considered and the matter be remanded back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

3.

Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

4.

We find that there was a delay of 493 days in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) as the corresponding demand notice was served on the assessee on 05.01.2024. Accordingly, the assessee was supposed to file appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by 04.02.2024 but the appeal was filed electronically on 10.06.2025 by making clear delay of 493 days.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) is of the view that no sufficient cause has been shown u/s.249(3) of the IT Act, therefore, he has not condoned the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal. We are of this considered view that there is no doubt that the delay on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal of 493 days is a big delay but as the assessee has submitted that the business of the company was shut down because of continues and heavy losses and directors of the company because of their ill heath did not check the income tax portal in time there was a delay in filing the appeal.

6.

We are of the considered view that in order to have natural justice the assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned

4 . and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open Court on 16.07.2026.

.

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (KRINWANT SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBR Dated :16/07/2026 *Neha Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →