Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders pertaining to quantum addition and penalty levied under section 270A for AY 2020-21. The CIT(A) had dismissed the quantum appeal without condoning the delay. However, the delay in filing the penalty appeal was condoned by the CIT(A). Both appeals were heard together due to similar facts and issues.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the reasons for delay were similar for both appeals. Since the delay in the penalty appeal was condoned, and the reasons for delay in the quantum appeal were reasonable, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay in the quantum appeal and decide the issue on merits. Similarly, the penalty appeal was also remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned and whether the matters should be decided on merits.
Sections Cited
270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders dated 11.08.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2020-21 towards quantum addition as well as levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Since, the issues raised in these appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 2778/Chny/2025 for adjudication.
The ld. AR Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA submits that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the quantum appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2020-21. She prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issue on merits.
The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT vehemently opposed the same and submits that if the Tribunal remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A), suitable cost may be imposed.
Having heard both the parties, we find that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the issue of delay in para 1.1 at page 3 of the impugned order. It is noted that the reasons given by the assessee for the delay are reproduced in page 2 of the impugned order. Considering the reasonableness of delay involved in filing of other two appeals i.e., one related to penalty appeal passed under section 270A of the Act of AY 2020-21, we note that the ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing appeal against levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act, but, however, the delay in filing the appeal against quantum addition has not been condoned by the ld. CIT(A). We note that the reasons stated and reproduced at page 2 of the impugned order are one and same for both quantum addition as well as appeal against levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act except difference in period. Considering the reasonableness in belated filing of the appeal, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issue on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Thus, the grounds raised
by the assessee against quantum addition are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 2779/Chny/2025
7. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the ld. AR drew our attention to para 7 of the penalty order passed under section 270A of the Act dated 16.01.2023 and submits that the Assessing Officer passed the penalty order levying penalty under section 270A of the Act since the assessee has not e-filed appeal against the quantum addition. He submits that since the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against quantum addition for AY 2020-21 and the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits, confirmation of levy of penalty by the first appellate authority is not correct. Thus, the ld. AR prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld.
CIT(A). Considering the submissions of the assessee and since we have remanded the appeal filed against quantum addition to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits, we also remand the penalty appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after adjudication of quantum addition. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th February, 2026 at Chennai.