SHRI DUDHGANGA VEDGANGA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD BIDRI ,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT CIR-1, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1086/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 July 2026AY 2015-163 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal due to a delay of 10 days. The assessee had explained the delay with an affidavit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without considering the merits, and whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable on a debatable issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 on 31.12.2025, emanating from the Penalty Order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27.09.2024.

2.

There was a delay of 06 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. We have perused the affidavit and convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, delay condoned.

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT appeal erred in passing Ex-parte order u/s 250 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 without discussing the merit of the case. The learned CIT(A) further erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of

ITA No. 1086/PUN/2026

delay. Appellant prays for restoring the matters to the file of learned CIT Appeal for considering the appeal on merit. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in law and on merit in levying penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of Rs. 2,89,07,426/- on addition made in respect of sale of sugar at concessional rate when the issue of sale of sugar at concessional rate was a highly debatable issue. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in law and on merit in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) when mere making if a claim which not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. Findings and analysis: None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the record. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee filed against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.09.2024 on account of delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee had filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal. We have read the affidavit of the assessee and are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. We are of the considered opinion that the substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall be allowed to file necessary documents and additional ground, if any.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 08th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 08-07-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Ravi Kumar Kumar Date: 2026.07.09 10:47:10 +05'30'

ITA No. 1086/PUN/2026

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

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 →