Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a non-resident Indian, did not file her income tax return for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer reopened the case, made an addition for property sale, and levied penalty under Section 270A. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 401-day delay in filing.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation that she became aware of the penalty order only upon receiving recovery notices during a visit to India. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and if the same should be condoned for deciding the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
270A, 147, 148, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस एस �व�वने� र�व, �या�यक सद�य एवं �ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.:3836/Chny/2025 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mouna Selvaraj, ITO, D.No.E, Srinivasan Enclave, 1/3, vs. Non-Corporate Ward -17 (7), Vijayanagar 9th Main Road, Chennai. Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. [PAN:BLJPS-2256-K] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. V. Mahadevan, C.A. ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM:
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”), dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order dated 10.06.2024 passed u/s.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19.
The brief facts of the case emanating from the records are that the assessee is an individual and non-resident Indian, who has been residing in USA since prior to A.Y.2018- 19. The assessee has not filed her income tax return for the relevant assessment year. As per the information available with the department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made a sale of immovable property for Rs.54,00,000/- at Kural,
Maharastra. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, a notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 18.03.2024 issued to the assessee and the assessment was completed by passing an exparte assessment order u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 29.12.2023 by making an addition of entire Rs.54,00,000/- by treating it as a short term capital gain. Consequent to the assessment, penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act was initiated and statutory notices were issued. Since, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices, the Assessing Officer passed an exparte penalty order u/s.270A of the Act dated 10.06.2024 by levying penalty of Rs.8,11,511/- for alleged under reporting of Income. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 15.08.2025 with a delay of 401 days in filing the appeal.
At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A), on perusal of the reasons provided by the assessee for filing the appeal with a delay for 401 days in Form No.35, the ld.CIT(A) was not convinced that there was sufficient cause and hence dismissed the appeal by passing an order dated 17.10.2025. Aggrieved by the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee reiterated the submissions made in Form 35 filed before the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee is Non resident of India, staying in USA and came to know the passing of an order levying penalty in June 2025 when she visited India on receiving the communications for recovery proceedings and immediately has taken steps to file the appeal. Therefore, there was a sufficient cause in filing the appeal belatedly and ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and give one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A). Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) to complete the penalty proceedings effectively.
Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee had not participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer also and filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 401 days and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed penalty order exparte. The assessee has explained that she is a residing at USA and became aware
of the penalty order only when she visited to India in June 2025 after receiving the recovery notices. However, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Since, the assessee’s explanation for delay in filing the appeal was beyond her control, we are inclined to condone the delay and provide one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A).
In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A) and direct the ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merit denovo in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th March, 2026 at Chennai.