VIRAJ VINOD LAD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 34(3)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8600/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 June 2026AY 2020-20213 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits. This is to be done in light of the outcome of the assessee's quantum appeal, and the issue of delay in filing the appeal will not be raised by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 concerns a penalty levied under Section 270A. The penalty is consequential to quantum additions, and the assessee's first appeal on the quantum issue was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether a consequential penalty appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication when the related quantum appeal has been restored. The issue of delay in filing the penalty appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 27.10.2025 in the matter of impugned penalty levied by learned Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the Act on 07.02.2023 for Rs.8,00,732/-.

2.

The learned AR, at the outset, placed on record order of Tribunal in assessee’s quantum appeal ITA No.8545/Mum/2025 dated 30.04.2026 wherein the issue of quantum additions, after condonation of delay in first appeal, have already been restored back by the Tribunal to learned CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits. The learned AR stated that this penalty is consequential to quantum addition and Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the present appeal for want of condonation of delay of 593 days. The Ld. Sr. DR fairly stated that this appeal is consequential in nature and this may also be restored back on in similar lines.

3.

In view of the above stated undisputed factual matrix, we deem it fit to restore the present consequential penalty back to the file of learned CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits in the light of outcome of assessee’s quantum appeal. The issue of delay would not be raised by learned CIT(A).

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11th June, 2026 (PAWAN SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANKIT, PS Dated: 11-06-2026

आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त/CIT 4. ववभागीयप्रवतवनवि/DR 5. गार्डफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →