ARUNA DEVI,PATNA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT/ITO WARD 4(1), PATNA, PATNA

ITA 69/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 September 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had shown "reasonable cause" for the delay, citing her being out of station due to family issues. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not represented her case at any level of the lower authorities. Considering the facts, and in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and decision as per law. The CIT(A) was directed to afford sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee without unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal also stated that in case of failure by the assessee, no second leniency would be granted. The issue of the penalty itself was not decided on merits by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Aruna Devi, is appealing an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 27.11.2025, which arose from a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 20.09.2024. The assessment year in question is 2016-2017. The assessment was completed under Section 147 of the Act, with an addition of Rs. 48,26,740/- on account of unexplained investment, leading to a total assessed income of Rs. 50,88,000/-. A penalty was initiated under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Despite notices, the assessee did not respond. The AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 13,91,942/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who also provided opportunities for response, but none was received, leading the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) with a delay of 5 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal is to be condoned, considering the reasons provided. Assessee's Contention (for condonation of delay): The assessee argued that the delay of 4 days was due to circumstances beyond her control, specifically being out of station in Bangalore due to family-related issues in January, which prevented her from attending to legal and financial matters promptly. The delay was stated to be neither intentional nor deliberate, nor attributable to negligence. The assessee contended that the delay was short, technical, and condoning it would not prejudice the Revenue, while dismissing it on technical grounds would cause grave hardship. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the condonation of delay or the merits of the case. The Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) made submissions, but their content is not detailed in relation to specific issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. CIT(A)’], vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/1083067155(1), dated 27.11.2025 arising out of penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 20.09.2024. 2 ITA No.69/Pat/2026/AY 2016-17 Aruna Devi vs. ITD/ITO

2.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s 147 of the Act as per notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2023. The income of the assessee was

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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →