DEVADHIDEV SHREE ADINATH SWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK JAIN SANGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2375/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 June 2026AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's condonation application for the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) was directed to decide on condonation and the merits of the case after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) for AY 2017-18. The assessee contended that the appeal before the CIT(A) was delayed due to non-operation of email by senior citizen trustees and lack of notice from the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the penalty order was passed without proper notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC(1),Section 115BBE(1)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH; MUMBAI

Hearing: 29.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH; MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2375/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

Devadhidev Shree Adinath ITO - WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI Swetamber Murtipujak Jain Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Sangh vs. Complex Mumbai, Mumbai, 9,Usha Kunj, Sahakar Road, Maharashtra, 400051 Jogeshwari West, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400102.

PAN: AABTD5503E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Veetrag Chhajed For Revenue : Shri Prasma Prakash Tewari, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 17.12.2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, sustaining the levy of penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), wherein the Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned assessing officer erred in law and facts by confirming the penalty levied under section 271AAC (1) of Income Tax of Rs.77,250/- i.e. 10% tax payable u/s 115BBE(1)(i) of the Act on the addition amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of Addition on account of cash deposited during the AY 2017-18.

ITA No. 2375/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2017-18 Devadhidev Shree Adinath Swetamber Murtipujak Jain Sangh

Our Appellant Prays that addition of Penalty of Rs. 77,250/- made shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of Appeal by The Hon’ble CIT(A).” 2. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), wherein he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1) on account of delayed filing and against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) as the show cause was received over the email which was not operated by any of the trustees who are senior citizens and later on, when the penalty order u/s. 271AAC(1) was passed and recovery notice was issued by the Assessing Officer, the trustees came to know about the penalty order and thereafter the appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was on account of genuine reasons and the assessee is not going to gain anything out of delay in filing of the appeal. It was further submitted that before disposing off the appeal filed by the assessee, no notice was issued by the ld. CIT(A) and had any notice been issued, the assessee would have responded with the necessary explanation before the ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that in the quantum proceedings, the matter has already been set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) by the order of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 3821/Mum/2023 and it was accordingly requested that the impugned matter may also be set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A).

4.

The ld. DR has been heard, who has not raised any specific objection where the matter is set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A).

5.

After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record and the limited prayer so raised by the ld. AR which has not been seriously contested by the ld. CIT(A), we set aside the

ITA No. 2375/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2017-18 Devadhidev Shree Adinath Swetamber Murtipujak Jain Sangh matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the condonation application/affidavit so sought to be filed by the assessee and taking the same into consideration, decide the matter relating to condonation in filing the appeal as well as on the merits of the case, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated: 30.06.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS

Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file

By Order

Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →