ARUN NAMDEV KENI,TALOJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, PANVEL, PANVEL

Assessment Year : 2014-15 Arun Namdev Keni, Vs. ITO, Ward-5, Panvel. At Pethali, Taloja, Panvel- 410208. PAN : AMGPK2155A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

2. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,02,28,270/-. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, erred in confirming the penalty, even though the appeal against the assessment was already set aside by the Hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune. 5. The appellant craves the leave to amend, alter, add or delete any of the grounds of appeal

, before or at the time of hearing.”

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee is an individual and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act was completed vide order 20.12.2016 wherein income of Rs.6,00,79,090/- was determined by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, penalty of Rs.2,02,28,270/- was also imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by an ex-parte order dated 27.06.2017.

4. Against the above penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was filed belatedly, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the delay dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

5. It is this above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

6. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing Ld. DR.

9. From the various details furnished by the assessee, we find the assessee is a farmer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It has further held that refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. In light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the fact that the appeal for assessment 2013-14 is still pending before the CIT(A) / NFAC, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submissions before the CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”

8. Since the appeal against the quantum addition, on the basis of which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was imposed, has already been set-aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh on merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the penalty appeal afresh as per fact & law after disposing of quantum appeal of the same assessment year. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce requisite documents/evidences/explanations in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass an