EDWARD PANRAJMOSES NADAR,BHANDUP vs. 29(1)(3), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

ITA 43/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 April 2026AY 2009-107 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 60 days due to family health issues and business finalization. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 69, and subsequently levied a penalty. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty on a reduced addition but the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be conflicting and not properly considered the assessee's contentions.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable as it was conflicting and did not independently examine the conditions for penalty levy. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was sustainable when the assessment order was ex parte and the CIT(A)'s order contained conflicting findings. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty without independently examining the conditions for its levy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 271(1)(c),Section 250,Section 251(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSIAN & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Dharkar
For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Hearing: 02.04.2026Pronounced: 09.06.2026

PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the National Faceless

Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 06.08.2025 for the assessment year

(AY) 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant was unable to file the appeal in the prescribed time resulting in a delay of about 60 days. The appellant states and submits that due to audit and filing of the Income Tax as also some health issues in the family the appeal was delayed. The appellant prays that in th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

All 8,928 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →