THE SIMPSON & GROUP COMPANIES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2875/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 February 2026AY 2018-20195 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) for both AYs 2018-19 and 2020-21. The assessee's omission to file within time was not deliberate, and the assessee did not gain any advantage from the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) on the condition that the assessee deposits a cost of ₹5,000/- for each case (total ₹10,000/-) in the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon'ble Madras High Court, within three months of receiving the order, and produces proof of deposit. The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) had not decided the penalty appeals on merits. Considering that the quantum appeals were restored to the Ld.CIT(A) for AYs 2018-19 and 2020-21, the Tribunal restored the penalty appeals also to the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the quantum appeal first, and thereafter decide the penalty appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. The assessee was directed to diligently appear and present documents, and the Ld.CIT(A) was to decide in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Simpson & Group Companies Coop. Credit Society Ltd., filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC. The appeals pertained to Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19 and 2020-21. The primary grievance was the Ld.CIT(A)'s dismissal of penalty appeals under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, not on merits, but for refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The assessee argued that similar delays in quantum appeals were condoned by the ITAT, which restored those matters to the Ld.CIT(A) for decision on merits. The revenue opposed the condonation of delay, citing considerable delay in filing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the penalty appeal for AY 2018-19 before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation"? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay should be condoned. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in "Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation" which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and granted an additional 90 days. They also pointed out that similar delays in quantum appeals were condoned by the ITAT, which restored those appeals to the Ld.CIT(A) for decision on merits, making the penalty unsustainable. The assessee also submitted that the penalty order for AY 2018-19 was passed on 05.02.2022, and for AY 2020-21 on 20.03.2023. Revenue's contention: The revenue vehemently opposed the plea, submitting that there was considerable delay in filing the appeal and it should not be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 27.12.2023 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2018-19 & dated 02.07.2025 for AY 2020-21.

2.

The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) dismissing the penalty appeal [u/s.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘)] not on merits but refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal before him.

3.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the assessee by preferring these appeals has challenged the action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act by refusing to condone the delay. He also brought to our notice that similar action was taken by the Ld.CIT(A) while considering the quantum appeal preferred by the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal before him, which matter was carried to this Tribunal [in & 2784/Chny/2025 for AY 2018-19 & 2020-21] and the Tribunal vide order dated 31.12.2025 was pleased to condone the delay and restore the quantum appeals back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, he pleaded that since the assessee has a good case on merits and since, the matter has been restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to be decided on merits, the penalty levied against the assessee pursuant to the quantum additions made by the AO would be unsustainable. Therefore, he prayed that the assessee being Cooperative Credit Society, the delay caused may be condoned and the quantum appeal may be restored back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to be decided after quantum appeals have been decided.

4.

The Ld.DR vehemently opposed the plea of the assessee and submitted that there was considerable delay in filing the appeal and & 2876/Chny/2025 (AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21) The Simpson & Group Companies – Coop. Credit Society Ltd. :: 3 ::

1.

therefore, it shouldn’t be condoned. In his rejoinder, [the Ld.AR drew our attention to the petition for condoning the delay and affidavit filed by the Managing Director of assessee Credit Society] and submitted that the penalty order u/s.270A of the Act was passed for AY 2018-19 on 05.02.2022. Likewise, penalty order for AY 2020-21 was passed on 20.03.2023. Further, he pointed out that the delay caused in the assessee’s case for AY 2018-19 would fall in the exemption granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [2022] 441 ITR 722 (SC)”, wherein, their Lordships have directed exclusion of period “from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022” and also gave liberty to the affected party further period of ‘90’ days time to file appeal. When considered, in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court directions (supra) then the delay caused in filing of appeal will be reduced to ‘441’ days for AY 2018-19.

5.

Coming to the appeal for AY 2020-21, the penalty order was dated 20.03.2023 and the assessee has instituted the appeal on 07.11.2023 with a delay of ‘201’ days. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit and application for condoning the delay, we are of the view that there was sufficient cause for delay, and the assessee’s omission to file the appeal within time can’t be termed deliberate and, in any case, the assessee doesn’t gain any advantage of not filing the appeal in time.

1.

1. & 2876/Chny/2025 (AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21) The Simpson & Group Companies – Coop. Credit Society Ltd. :: 4 ::

1. Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play, we condone the delay in filing of appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) provided assessee deposit a cost of ₹5,000/- for each case [i.e. ₹10,000/-] in the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within three (3) months of receipt of this order; and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the Ld.CIT(A), then only the Ld CIT(A) to decide the appeal. We further note that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the penalty appeals on merits; and hence, considering the fact that the quantum appeals preferred by the assessee has been restored back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for AYs 2018- 19 & 2020-21 vide order dated 31.12.2025 in the assessee’s own case, we restore both the penalty appeals also back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide quantum appeal first and thereafter decide the penalty appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. The assessee to diligently appear & present documents to support the grounds raised before the Ld.CIT(A) without fail and the Ld.CIT(A) to decide in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →