S.P. & CO,DIGBOI (ASSAM) vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR1 DIBRUGARH, DIBRUGARH

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144, Section 270A, Section 250

ITA 132/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 May 2026AY 2018-20198 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo reassessment, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. Some appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT after the CIT(A) dismissed their appeals due to delay. The ITAT condoned the delay for some appeals, but noted a lack of proper compliance before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed before the CIT(A) were barred by limitation and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment due to lack of proper opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 270A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeals filed by the Assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 21.01.2026 and 12.01.2026. The assessee sought adjournment but since there was no justification for seeking the adjournment, therefore, the same was rejected.

1 The Registry has informed that the appeals in ITA No. 179 & 182/GTY/2026 are barred by limitation by 6 & 8 days respectively. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay only for ITA No. 179/GTY/2026 explaining the reasons that the 1st appeal was filed online in the ITAT portal on 21.03.2026 within due date but was ITA No(s). 132, 166, 179 & 182/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2018-19 S.P. & Co. returned for fresh filing citing reason “Form 36 not uploaded on ITAT online during filing of appeal. Hence, e-filing of appeal by Assessee is returned herewith for fresh filing". The assessee therefore, filed the 2nd appeal on 06.04.2026, and therein the assessee had prayed that the condonation of delay might not be required as the 1st appeal had been filed on 21.03.2026, within due date and that the 2nd appeal, might be read with the 1st appeal, as the 2nd appeal had taken birth/came into existence because of the presence of already filed and on record of the said 1st appeal. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeals within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication.

2 Since the issues in both the appeals are related, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 132/GTY/2026: “1.0 The appellant prays, for Order, to correct the date of filing by the appellant of appeal u/s 246A [against the Order bearing number SHL-C(25)( 1), passed u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated: 03.02.2022 (‘Order- in-Original), passed by the Assessing Officer for FY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 & served on 25.02.2022,] from 03.02.2025 (as wrongly recorded by the said Order-in-Appeal) to 28.02.2022 (as evidenced by the appeal filing acknowledgment number and Form 35 and challan of even date).

0 The appellant prays for Order, that the appeal filed by the appellant u/s 246A [against the Order bearing number SHL-C(25)(1), passed u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated: 03.02.2022 (‘Order-in-Original), passed by the Assessing Officer for FY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 & served on 25.02.2022,] is not barred by limitation.

S.P. & Co.

0 The appellant prays for Order, to set aside the Order of the Ld. Commissioner bearing DIN & Order Number ITBA/NFAC/250/2025-26/1084683635(1) dated: 12.01.2026 (‘Order-in- Appeal’) and remand the matter back to the office of the Ld. Commissioner Appeal for fresh hearing as the case is strong on merit and the income tax & penalty payable, by the appellant on consideration of merit is Rs 0/- and not Rs 59,58,818/-.

0 The appellant prays, that the each ground for appeal, may be read without prejudice to the other grounds for appeal and that the appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal and prays for opportunity for personal hearing.” II. ITA No. 166/GTY/2026: “1.0 The appellant prays, for Order, to correct the date of filing by the appellant of appeal u/s 246A [against the Order bearing number SHL- C(25)(1), passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated: 19.04.2021 (4Order-in-Original), passed by the Assessing Officer for FY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 & served on 25.02.2022,] from 03.02.2025 (as wrongly recorded by the said Order-in-Appeal) to 27.02.2022 (as evidenced by the appeal filing acknowledgment number and Form 35 and challan of even date).

0 The appellant prays for Order, that the appeal filed by the appellant u/s 246A [against the Order bearing number SHL-C(25)(1), passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated: 19.04.2021 (‘Order-in-Original), passed by the Assessing Officer for FY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 & served on 25.02.2022,] is not barred by limitation.

0 The appellant prays for Order, to set aside the Order of the Ld. Commissioner bearing DIN & Order Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085008682(1), dated: 21.01.2026 (‘Order- in-Appeal’) and remand the matter back to the office of the Ld. Commissioner Appeal for fresh hearing as the case is strong on merit and the income tax & penalty payable, by the appellant on consideration of merit is Rs 0/- and not Rs 38,29,100/-.

1 The first appeal, has wrongly been sent back for fresh filing, without the issue of defect memo/notice and that such sent back may be considered as beyond law and that this second appeal, may be read with the first appeal dated: 21.03.26 and thus there may be no ground for filing of condonation of delay. Pray, please allow opportunity to cure defects if any, by issue of defect memo/notice and grant of hearing.

0 The appellant prays, that each ground for appeal, may be read without prejudice to the other grounds for appeal and that the appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the above grounds of appeal at ITA No(s). 132, 166, 179 & 182/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2018-19 S.P. & Co. or before the time of hearing of the appeal and prays for opportunity for personal hearing.” III. ITA No. 179/GTY/2026: “1.0 The appellant prays, for Order, to correct the date of filing by the appellant of appeal u/s 246A [against the Order bearing number SHL-C(25)( 1), passed u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated: 03.02.2022 (4Order-in-Original), passed by the Assessing Officer for FY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 & served on 25.02.2022,] from 03.02.2025 (as wrongly recorded by the said Order-in-Appeal) to 28.02.2022 (as evidenced by the appeal filing acknowledgment number and Form 35 and challan of even date).

0 The appellant prays for Order, that the appeal filed by the appellant u/s 246A [against the Order bearing number SHL-C(25)(1), passed u/s 270Aof the Income Tax Act 1961, dated: 03.02.2022 (‘Order-in-Original), passed by the Assessing Officer for FY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 & served on 25.02.2022,] is not barred by limitation.

0 The appellant prays for Order, to set aside the Order of the Ld. Commissioner bearing DIN & Order Number ITBA/NFAC/250/2025-26/1085008061(1) dated: 21.01.2026 (‘Order-in- Appeal’) and remand the matter back to the office of the Ld. Commissioner Appeal for fresh hearing as the case is strong on merit and the income tax & penalty payable, by the appellant on consideration of merit is Rs 0/- and not Rs 59,58,818/-.

0 The appellant prays, that each ground for appeal, may be read without prejudice to the other grounds for appeal and that the appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal and prays for opportunity for personal hearing.” IV. ITA No. 182/GTY/2026: “1.0 The appellant prays, for Order, to correct the date of filing by the appellant of appeal u/s 246A [against the Order bearing number SHL- C(25)(1), passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated: 19.04.2021 (‘Order-in-Original), passed by the Assessing Officer for FY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 & served on 25.02.2022,] from 03.02.2025 (as wrongly recorded by the said Order-in-Appeal) to 27.02.2022 (as evidenced by the appeal filing acknowledgment number and Form 35 and challan of even date).

S.P. & Co.

0 The appellant prays for Order, to set aside the Order of the Ld. Commissioner bearing DIN & Order Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085008491(l), dated: 21.01.2026 (‘Order- in-Appeal’) and remand the matter back to the office of the Ld. Commissioner Appeal for fresh hearing as the case is strong on merit and the income tax & penalty payable, by the appellant on consideration of merit is Rs 0/- and not Rs 38,29,100/-.

We shall first take up ITA No. 166/GTY/2026 for adjudication.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income electronically on 31.03.2019 for the AY 2018-19 admitting deemed total income of ₹90,760/-. The return was processed by the CPC and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued on 12.11.2019 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹90,760/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and the reason mentioned in the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was ‘default in TDS & Disallowance for such default’. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued to the assessee but the assessee did not comply to either of the notices. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') therefore, passed the best judgment assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at ₹97,32,856/- S.P. & Co. after making addition of ₹96,42,100/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who noted that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 166/GTY/2026 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

As regards the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 132/GTY/2026, since the facts are identical and the appeal on account S.P. & Co. of penalty was also dismissed on the ground of delay, therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is also hereby set aside and remanded to the Ld. AO to be done de novo as we have set aside the appeal order in relation with the assessment order and the appeal against the penalty order shall be decided after considering the outcome of the appeal against the assessment order, which has been restored to the file of the Ld. AO. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal is also partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Apparently, the quantum appeal against the order u/s 144 of the Act in ITA Nos. 166 & 182/GTY/2026 relate to the same order dated 19.04.2022 while the appeals ITA Nos. 132 & 179/GTY/2026 relating to penalty u/s 270A of the Act also relate to the same order u/s 270A dated 03.02.2022 and there are only two effective appeals and the other two appeals are infructuous. Hence, the appeals in ITA Nos. 182 & 179/GTY/2026 are dismissed as they are infructuous.

10.

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 166 & 132/GTY/2026 for AY 2018-19 are partly allowed for statistical purposes while appeals in ITA Nos. 182 & 179/GTY/2026 are dismissed being infructuous. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th May, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 18.05.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

S.P. & Co. Copy of the order forwarded to:

S.P. & Co, Golai Number 1, P.O. & P.S. Digboi, Tinsukia, Assam, 786171. 2. ACIT/DCIT, Cir-1, Dibrugarh.

CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

CIT-

CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.

Guard File. //// By order

More judgments on Section 270A

Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, Himatnagar
ITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad
ITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…
ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), Hyderabad
ITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, Anantapur
ITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →