PRIYANKA DORNALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

At the outset, there is a delay of 21 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee is a NRI and after her marriage shifted to USA therefore, she could not follow up the tax matters and only her father who is the senior citizen is looking after the tax matters of the assessee. He has thus submitted that since the assessee is staying in USA and could not personally follow the income tax matter therefore, there is a delay of 21 days in filing the present appeals.

On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee is negligent towards the tax matters as there was delay of 133 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit which reads as under:

In the appeal ITA.No.134/Hyd./2026 against the penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine whereas the quantum appeal is still pending before the learned CIT(A). Thus, he has pleaded that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for deciding the appeal of the assessee after outcome of the quantum appeal pending adjudication.

On the other hand, the learned DR has raised no objection if the appeal is set aside to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee filed against the penalty levied u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act in limine as there was delay of 133 days in filing the appeal. It is pertinent to note that when the quantum appeal is also pending adjudication before the learned CIT(A) then, the appeal against the penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) ought to have been decided only after the outcome of the quantum appeal. In case the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted in the quantum proceedings then, the penalty shall have no legs to stand and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) prior to the adjudication of the quantum appeal is set aside. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter arising from the penalty levied u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act is remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the same after the outcome of the quantum appeal. The learned CIT(A) shall give an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal.

In the result, ITA.No.134/Hyd./2026 of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the appeal ITA.No.135/Hyd./2026 arising from penalty u/sec.271F of the Act, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that due to smallness of the penalty amount the assessee does not press this appeal.

On the other hand, the learned DR has raised no objection if the appeal arising against the penalty u/sec.271F of the Act is dismissed as not pressed.

In view of the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee as well as no objection of the learned DR, the appeal filed against the penalty levied u/sec.271F of the Act is dismissed as not pressed.

In the result, ITA.No.135/Hyd./2026 of the Assessee is dismissed as not pressed.