PEDNE TALUKA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP STY LTD,PEDNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

In the fact and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax officer, NFAC Income Tax Department, was not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 36,78,818/-which is 200% of tax liability and hence

That the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in levying penalty under section 270A without appreciating that there was no deliberate intention to under-report income and which is confirmed by the CIT(A), NFAC.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing, without appreciating that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to reasonable and sufficient cause beyond the control of the appellant.

That the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty without adjudicating the appeal on merits, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and denying the appellant an effective opportunity of being heard.

That the Assessing Officer failed to record proper and specific satisfaction as required under section 270A, and the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming such penalty without examining this legal infirmity.

That the authorities passing order failed to appreciate that the appellant had acted bona fide, made full and true disclosure of all material facts, and there was no intention to evade tax.

The learned CIT (A) has mechanically confirmed the penalty order without application of mind and without

The penalty levied is excessive, arbitrary, and disproportionate to the alleged default and hence liable to be deleted.

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

Relief Claimed: For these and other grounds of appeal to be filed at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that:-

The appellant prays for leave to Add, modify, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceeding.

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay which was for reasonable cause and if the same is condoned then the issues raised on merits may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.

On the other hand Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assesse is a Co- operative Society and after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act declared ‘NIL’ income for A.Y. 2018-19 filed on 30.10.2018. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has been passed disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act and penalty proceedings u/s 270A r.w.s 270A(9)(a) of the Act initiated for non-reporting of Income in consequence of misreporting of income. Penalty proceedings were carried out and penalty of Rs. 36,78,818/- levied u/s 270A(10) of the Act. The assesse challenged the levy of penalty before Ld. CIT(A) but the appeal was barred by limitation and delay has not been condoned by Ld. CIT(A) resulting into dismissal of appeal.

We have gone through the reasons giving rise to the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and found them to be reasonable cause and that the delay is not intentional. Therefore following a justice oriented approach and in the light of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) and being fair to both the parties we condone the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assesse. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.

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