Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order for AY 2013-14, which was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a 20-day delay. The assessee cited medical reasons and the pendency of the quantum appeal as grounds for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 300 days in filing the appeal and also the 20-day delay before the CIT(A), considering the medical condition of the assessee and the COVID-19 pandemic extension. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh decision after the quantum appeal is decided.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the penalty appeal should be decided before the quantum appeal.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 147, 249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 28/11/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for the A.Y.2013-14. 2. The assessee is merely aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs.58,98,604/- made on account of addition of short term capital gain from sale of agricultural land.
Milan Sachin Soundalkar 3. At the outset, there is a delay of 300 days in filing of appeal in the petition of condonation of delay alongwith affidavit of the assessee. It had been stated that assessee was medically ill suffering from severe gynecological issues as well as cervical spondylosis and vertigo and was completely confined to bed from September 2023 onwards. Due to medical problems, assessee was not aware of any exparte order passed by the ld. CIT (A). Further, the assessee came to know about the order only during the hearing of the quantum proceedings. For the same assessment year, details were furnished during the course of the hearing and then only it came to the knowledge of the assessee that already ld. CIT(A) had passed penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) even when quantum order was pending. Since assessee was not aware of any exparte order and also due to medical conditions assessee was not aware of any such notice, the appeal could not be filed within the time.
Another important fact is that once quantum appeal is pending before the ld. CIT(A) then there was no reason to decide the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c). Accordingly, delay of 300 days is condoned.
From the perusal of the appellate order, it is seen that ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal on account of delay of 20 days. The facts relating to the delay is that assessment order u/s.147 was passed in this case on 22/09/2021 and penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) was passed on 21/12/2021. The appeal was filed by the Milan Sachin Soundalkar assessee on 09/02/2022. It was due to covid-19 pandemic, the limitation period u/s.249(2) stood extended up to 30/05/2022 in view of the in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance Extension of Limitation, 441 ITR 722 (SC). Thus, the limitation period between 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 was extended up to 90 days. The ld. CIT (A) without any reason has dismissed the appeal without looking to the fact that there was no delay due to extension / limitation period by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the delay of 20 days before the ld. CIT (A) is condoned.
Since ld. CIT (A) has not decided the appeal on merits and moreover the quantum appeal is still pending before the ld. CIT (A), therefore, it would be proper that this penalty appeal is set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh after deciding the quantum appeal. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29th April, 2025.