PARSVNATH RAIL LAND PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 19(1), C. R. BUILDING, DELHI, DELHI

ITA 5142/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution, specifically the failure to file written submissions despite several notices. The assessee's counsel requested one more opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) with written submissions, stating they had a strong case on merits. The Revenue opposed this. Considering the principles of natural justice and the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee was directed to strictly comply with the proceedings, and the Ld. CIT(A) was instructed to adjudicate all grounds raised by the assessee, both legal and on merits, in accordance with law. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the penalty or the grounds raised by the assessee, as the matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Parsvnath Rail Land Project Private Limited, filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 432 days, which the Tribunal condoned. The assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on December 9, 2019, determining total income at a loss of Rs. 6,13,64,329/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after disallowing expenses of Rs. 3,24,00,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for delayed TDS deposits. The assessee had voluntarily offered this disallowance in a revised computation of income after the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,14,24,824/-. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, stating no written submissions were filed despite notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution by passing an appellate order on December 19, 2024, without adjudicating the grounds of appeal. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,14,24,824/- under Section 270A of the Act on the disallowance of Rs. 3,24,00,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia), considering the disallowance was voluntarily offered due to a clerical error and arose from an inadvertent omission. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in arbitrarily rejecting the assessee's explanation, despite full disclosure and absence of concealment, suppression, or misrepresentation, thus arguing there was neither under-reporting nor misreporting of income under Section 270A. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under Section 270A without specifying which limb of the section is attracted and how the ingredients of Sub-section 9 of Section 270A are satisfied. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under Section 270A on an addition that had no tax impact as the assessee remained in loss, making it eligible for immunity under Section 270AA. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the disallowance was voluntarily offered due to a clerical error and not intentional under-reporting. They contended there was no concealment, suppression, or misrepresentation, and thus no under-reporting or misreporting under Section 270A. They also argued that the penalty had no tax impact as the assessee was in loss, making them eligible for immunity under Section 270AA. The assessee sought an opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) with written submissions. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue opposed granting the assessee another opportunity due to non-compliance before the first appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 270A,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 143(3),Section 270AA,Section 270AAA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “B” NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Paritosh Jain, Advocate &, Shri Abhishek Jain, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta
Hearing: 01.09.2026

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.s’ for short) 2017-18. 2

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[hereinafter referred as “CIT(A)”] dated 19.12.2024 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad both i

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 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →