DHARMENDRA KANTILAL MANAVADRIYA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 567/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 October 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's Chikungunya infection, supported by medical records. Regarding the penalty under Section 270A, the Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year had been set aside by the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Citing its own order in ITA.No.318/Hyd./2025, where the quantum appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after observing that the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to present their case, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 270A would not survive. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) against the penalty order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the outcome of the quantum proceedings. The assessee was to be given an appropriate opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dharmendra Kantilal Manavadriya, filed an appeal before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, against the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, dated 14.10.2025. This order arose from a penalty levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. There was a delay of 55 days in filing the appeal, which the assessee attributed to suffering from Chikungunya infection, supported by medical records. The Revenue did not seriously object to the condonation of delay. The assessee's representative submitted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year had been set aside by the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is liable to be condoned, considering the assessee's medical condition? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the penalty levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable when the quantum appeal has been set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication? Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the assessee's severe Chikungunya infection, supported by medical records. - The penalty under Section 270A is not sustainable as the quantum appeal has been set aside by the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contentions: - Since the quantum appeal matter is remanded to the CIT(A), the penalty issue arising from the order under Section 270A should also be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the quantum matter is decided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Order dated 14.10.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, arising from penalty order passed u/sec.270A of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. There is a delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The asse

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 →