SRIRAMULU RAMESH,HOSUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HOSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 749/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 April 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence for their claims.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 71 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a penalty under Section 271D for failure to provide details regarding repayment and lenders' capacity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty without allowing the assessee to furnish complete details regarding repayment and lenders' capacity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 15.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

आदेश/O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13.

2 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.749/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.749/Chny/2026 No.749/Chny/2026 No.749/Chny/2026

2.

We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 71 days. The assessee

filed an affidavit explaining the reasons and on perusal of the same upon

hearing both the parties, we find the reasons stated in Para 3 of the

affidavit are bona fide which really prevented the assessee in filing the

appeal in time. Hence, delay of 71 days condoned.

3.

At the outset, it is noted that the assessee preferred in appeal before

the first appellate authority against the order dated 22.08.2022 passed u/s

271D of the Act, wherein the ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of said penalty

by holding that the assessee failed to confirm whether the repayment was

done through banking channel or in cash, further no relevant details of

lenders in substantiating their capacity furnished before the appellate

authority.

4.

The ld AR Mr. C. Satish pleaded one more opportunity stating that

the assessee is ready to furnish all the details in support of his grounds

raised before the ld CIT(A) and to remand the matter to the file of ld

CIT(A).

5.

The ld DR reported no objection.

3 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.749/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.749/Chny/2026 No.749/Chny/2026 No.749/Chny/2026

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case

and submissions of ld AR and ld DR, we deem it proper to remand the

matter to the file of ld CIT(A) for a fresh consideration. Assessee is at

liberty to file evidence in support of his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by

the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

purposes.

Order pronounced on 29th April, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 29.04.2026 YS/- आदेशकी'ितिलिपअ.ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant, 2.'(थ&/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु//CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय'ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड$ फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.04 10:41:42 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →