SADASHIV RAMA KALOKHE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-3, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the delay occurred before the learned CIT(A), it was incumbent upon the learned CIT(A) to consider the affidavit and the cause of the delay. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal remitted both matters back to the file of the learned CIT(A). The assessee was directed to furnish an affidavit before the learned CIT(A) justifying the cause of delay. The learned CIT(A) was further directed to decide the issue of condonation of delay afresh and, if convinced, to decide the appeals on their merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Sadashiv Rama Kalokhe, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 2658/Mum/2025 and 2757/Mum/2025) for Assessment Year 2017-18 against two separate orders dated 24/02/2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi (referred to as the learned CIT(A)). The first appeal (ITA No. 2658/Mum/2025) pertained to additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) amounting to Rs. 4,22,50,000/-. The second appeal (ITA No. 2757/Mum/2025) concerned a penalty levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of these additions. In both cases, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals without condoning the delay, which was stated to be 1383 days in the first instance. The assessee attributed the delay to the negligence of the learned counsel.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay of 1383 days, thereby precluding a decision on the merits of the additions amounting to Rs. 4,22,50,000/- under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal concerning the penalty levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without condoning the delay, thereby precluding a decision on the merits of the penalty. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeals was due to the negligence of the learned counsel. The assessee submitted an affidavit to this effect. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HONBLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER \nPER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:\n\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nI.T.A. No. 2658/Mum/2025\nI.T.A. No. 2757/Mum/2025\n2\nI.T.A. No. 2658/Mum/2025 & two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two\nseparate orders of NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)"] dt.\n24/02/2025 pertaining to AY 2017-18.\n2. Since facts are interlinked, both these appeals are disposed off by\nthis common order for the sake of convenience of brevity.\n3. Facts of ITA No. 2658/Mum/2025; AY 2017-18, are considered.\n4. It has been brought to our notice that due to delay of 1383 days in\nfiling the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay has\ndismissed this appeal. This appeal pertains to the additions made by the\nAO amounting to Rs.4,22,50,000/-.\n4.
Similarly, in 270A of the Act in respect of the additions mentioned\nhereinabove, the appeal of the assessee was late and barred by\nlimitation and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning\nthe delay.\n5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished the affidavit\nstated that because of the negligence of the ld. Counsel, the appeal could\nnot be preferred in time.\n6. We are of the considered view that since the delay was before the\nld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) has to consider the affidavit and the cause of\nthe delay. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we remit the\nmatter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to\nfurnish the affidavit before the ld. CIT(A) justifying the cause of delay\n\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nI.T.A. No. 2658/Mum/2025\nI.T.A. No. 2757/Mum/2025\n3\nand the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue of condonation of delay\nafresh and if convinced, decide the appeal on merits of the case.\n7. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes.\nOrder pronounced in the Court on 18th June, 2025 at Mumbai.\nSd/-\n(SAKTIJIT DEY)\nVICE PRESIDENT\nSd/-\n(NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nMumbai, Dated 18/06/2025\n*SC SPS\nआदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/
More judgments on Section 270A
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, AnantapurITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
