Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, which dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. The original penalty order was passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal for quantum addition for the same assessment year was set aside for denovo adjudication. Therefore, the present appeal from the penalty order was also set aside to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits, and whether the delay should have been condoned.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(c), 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prasanna Shrikant Patankar, V The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Raviwar Peth, Azad s Ward-4, Satara. Chowk, Karad, Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. PAN: ALYPP1014A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.CIT(Virtual) Date of hearing 16/12/2025 Date of pronouncement 18/12/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2015-16 dated 29.05.2025 emanating from penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) dated 19.09.2023. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play 2. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of 'audi alteram partem 3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without application of mind and without observing the principles of natural justice.
4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in passing the appellate order dismissing the appellant's appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal and without going either into the merits of the case or discussing the various grounds of appeal
and statement of facts filed by the appellant.
5. That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in passing the appellate order dismissing the appellant's appeal without going into the merits of the case and simply rejecting the appeal on the ground of being filed beyond the prescribed time limit.
6. That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has misdirected himself in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant without appreciating the judgments passed by various courts in regard to the condonation of delay in filing the said appeal
7. That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in not appreciating the bonafide reasons submitted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings, which prevented the appellant in filing the said appeal within the prescribed time.
8. That, the appellant may kindly be allowed to add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing.
9. That, the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.
10. Any other order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.”
2. At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the Assessee. An adjournment letter requesting for adjournment was filed by Sachin P. Kumar Associates-Chartered Accountant. Since 2
Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on the ground of delay. For A.Y.2015-16, the Assessee’s appeal for quantum addition in vide order dated 28.11.2025 has been set-aside by ITAT to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeal emanating from penalty order under section 271(1)(c) is also set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. We direct ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing. Assessee shall file necessary details before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18 December, 2025.