TRAVEL FOOD SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6889/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 October 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that the penalty order dated 01.02.2023 was only noticed in May 2023, and prior to that, no communication was received. Therefore, counting from the date of service, there was no delay. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's submission that the Learned CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to be heard before dismissing the appeal. Considering these facts, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the Learned CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to consider the assessee's affidavit, condone the delay if found acceptable, and decide the appeal on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal should not be dismissed for delay without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay, especially when a procedural error in noting the date of service might have occurred.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Travel Food Services Limited, filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.04.2026. This order pertained to Assessment Year 2020-21 and sustained a penalty of Rs. 7,24,550/- levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing, without providing an opportunity to explain the delay. The assessee claimed the penalty order dated 01.02.2023 was noticed on the e-filing portal in May 2023, and the appeal was filed on 26.06.2023. A procedural error occurred where the date of service of the notice was wrongly mentioned as 01.04.2023 instead of May 2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee before the Learned CIT(A) was delayed, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned, turning on the interpretation of the date of receipt of the penalty order and the procedural fairness in dismissing the appeal without an opportunity to explain the delay, as per principles of natural justice. Assessee's contentions: The Learned AR argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity to explain the delay. The assessee claimed there was no actual delay as the penalty order was only noticed in May 2023, and the appeal was filed promptly thereafter. The mention of 01.04.2023 as the service date was an error. The assessee relied on the principle of affording a reasonable opportunity before dismissal. Revenue's contentions: The Learned DR argued that the assessee did not acknowledge the apparent delay of 112 days and provided no explanation for it, thus the appeal was rightly rejected by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH; MUMBAI

Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 16.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH; MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6889/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

Travel Food Services Limited DCIT 8(3)(1) A Block, South Wing, Shiv Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Sagar Estate, 1st Floor, Dr. vs. Karve Road, Mumbai, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Maharashtra, 400020. Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400018.

PAN: AADCB2762L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Samir Shah For Revenue : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 29.04.2026, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21, sustaining the levy of penalty u/s. 270A amounting to Rs. 7,24,550/-.

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of fact that there was a delay in filing the appeal. However, no opportunity has been provided to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal and it was submitted that in fact, there is no delay in filing the appeal and the order of the

ITA No. 6889/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2020-21 Travel Food Services Limited penalty under section 270A was noticed by the tax manager on the e- filing portal in the month of May, 2023 and thereafter, the appeal was filed on 26.06.2023. However, while filing the appeal, the date of service of the notice has been wrongly mentioned as 01.04.2023 instead of May, 2023. It was accordingly submitted that there is no delay in filing the appeal, however, given that no opportunity has been provided by the ld. CIT(E), the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed without affording reasonable opportunity.

3.

The ld. DR has been heard, who has submitted that while filing the appeal, the assessee has not even acknowledged the apparent delay in filing the appeal, and given the fact that there was delay of 112 days and there has not been any explanation submitted by the assessee as to the reason why the delay has occurred in filing the appeal, the appeal has rightly been rejected by the ld. CIT(E).

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is the claim of the assessee that the penalty order dated 01.02.2023 has been noticed on the IT portal only in the month of May, 2023, and prior to that the assessee was not in receipt of any communication of the said notice, and therefore where the period from the date of service of the notice is counted, there is no delay. It was further submitted that no opportunity has been provided by the ld. CIT(E) before dismissing its appeal. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to consider the assessee's affidavit, which has been placed before us, and where the same is found acceptable, condoned the delay and decide on the merits of the case after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

ITA No. 6889/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2020-21 Travel Food Services Limited

5.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- ANIKESH BANERJEE VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated: 16.10.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS

Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file

By Order ABHINAV ANANT Digitally signed by ABHINAV ANANT GAVANDE GAVANDE Date: 2026.10.26 18:19:13 +05'30' Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →