MANSUKHLAL MOHANLAL MEHTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5049/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 February 2026AY 2018-19Bench: the Tribunal was filed with a delay of 81 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining that the order of the learned CIT(A) came to the knowledge of the assessee only upon receipt of recovery notice dated 23.07.2025 and that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that he has no serious objection if the delay is condoned. 4. We have considered the explanation fu1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A is directly linked to the addition made under Section 56(2)(x), which is still pending adjudication. Dismissing the penalty appeal solely on technical grounds of delay without examining merits is not justified. The interest of justice would be served by restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 81 days, explaining it was due to a recovery notice and not intentional. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal on grounds of delay without adjudicating the penalty on merits. The penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 270A following an addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the penalty appeal on grounds of delay without adjudicating on merits, and whether the penalty proceedings, being consequential, should be decided after the main appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 56(2)(x),Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 154,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Ms. Kalpana Gandhi, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. DR
Hearing: 10.02.2026Pronounced: 13.02.2026

PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: These proceedings consist of appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for A.Y. 2018–19 and Stay Application seeking stay of 2 & S.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 Mansukhlal Mohanlal Mehta HUF recovery of penalty demand arising from order passed under section 270A of the Act. Since both matters arise from the same penalty proceedings and were heard together, th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →