SAPNA PARTHA GADRE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-22(3)(6), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 365/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 March 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay, as the assessee had filed it within the extended period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The finding of delay was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order u/s 270A, which was dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of delay. The assessee argued that due to COVID-19 pandemic extensions granted by the Supreme Court, the appeal was filed within the extended limitation period.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was within the extended period of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and if the CIT(A) correctly considered this aspect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘G’ BENCH

For Appellant: Ms. Dhwani Shah
For Respondent: Shri. Bhangepatil Pushkaraj
Hearing: 24/03/2025Pronounced: 26/03/2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (A.M): The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2017-18/10078951 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2018-19, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against levy of penalty u/s 270A was dismissed

2.

In this regard, Ld. AR submitted that the penalty order u/s. 270A was passed by the AO/NFAC, Delhi on 7.12.2021 and the date for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was 6.02.2022. However, in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in suo-moto writ petition (Civil no. 03/2020 dated 23.03.2020 r/w MA. 21/2022 dated 10.01.2022), the period of limitation which was expiring between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 was extended due to out-break of COVID-19 pandemic for 90 days from 01.03.2022 or actual balance period of limitation whichever is higher. It was submitted that in light of the said decision, the assessee had 90 days to file the appeal which expired on 29.05.2022 and as against that, before the expiry thereof, the assessee has filed the appeal on 29.01.2022. Hence, there was no delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), in spite of the fact that the assessee, in the statement of facts submitted as part of the appeal documentation, has given the said explanation, has not taken the same into consideration and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on account of delay in filing the appeal.

3.

The Ld. DR was heard who has not raised any objection in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the limitation period in view of the COVID 19 pandemic.

4.

After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record and taking into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supra), we find that there was no delay in filing the present appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that there was a delay in filing the present appeal is hereby set aside, the appeal of the assessee is admitted and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

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

Order pronounced in open court on 26.03.2025.

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →