KK 238 P N PATTY VEERAKKAL PUDUR PACCS LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2871/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 February 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 157 days in filing the quantum appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal considered the assessee to be a Primary Co-operative Credit Society and noted the ill-health of its Secretary, attributing the delay to Covid-19 complications and hospitalization. The delay was condoned subject to the assessee remitting a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon'ble Madras High Court, within three months and producing proof of deposit. Consequently, the quantum appeal was set aside and restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Regarding the penalty appeal, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty partly due to the dismissal of the quantum appeal and the assessee's failure to substantiate its grounds. Since the quantum appeal was restored, the penalty appeal was also restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide the grounds of appeal as per Section 250(6) of the Act, with the assessee directed to participate and file written submissions/documents. The Ld. CIT(A) is to pass a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, KK 238 P.N. Patty Veerakkal Pudur Primary Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., filed two appeals before the ITAT against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 30.07.2024, for Assessment Year 2020-21. ITA No.2870/Chny/2025 challenged the confirmation of a quantum addition, while ITA No.2871/Chny/2025 challenged the confirmation of a penalty levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the quantum appeal due to a delay of 157 days in filing, without adjudicating on merits. The penalty appeal was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) partly due to the dismissal of the quantum appeal and partly due to the assessee's failure to substantiate its grounds against the penalty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide on the condonation of delay in filing the quantum appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2020-21, and if so, whether the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were sufficient. 2. Whether the Tribunal had to decide on the validity of the penalty levied under Section 270A of the Act for AY 2020-21, considering the assessee's contention that the Assessing Officer did not specify any particular limb under sub-section (9) of Section 270A, making the levy vague. Assessee's Contentions: For the quantum appeal, the assessee argued that the delay of 157 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to the ill-health and hospitalization of the Society's Secretary, who was bed-ridden and unable to hand over the assessment order to the Authorized Representative. The assessee is a Primary Co-operative Credit Society. For the penalty appeal, the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer failed to specify any particular limb under Section 270A(9) of the Act, rendering the penalty levy vague, ambiguous, and unsustainable. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the penalty levy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 250

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 30.07.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2020-21.

is against action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the quantum addition made by the AO for AY 2020-21, whereas Ld.CIT(A) confirming the

1.

ITA Nos.2870 & 2871/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-21) KK 238 P.N. Patty Veerakkal Pudur – Primary Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. penalty levied u/s.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) for AY 2020-21 .

2.

At the outset, it was brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) while considering the quantum appeal has refused to condone the delay of ‘157’ days in filing of appeal before him and therefore dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Further, it was brought to our notice that there was no delay in filing of the penalty appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). However, the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty inter-alia, since he has dismissed the quantum appeal supra. In respect of the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) [quantum appeal], the Ld.AR brought to our notice that the assessee is a Primary Cooperative Credit Society functioning at Salem. And the reason for the delay [in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)] was attributed to the ill-health of the Secretary of the assessee-Society who was bed-ridden and had to be hospitalized at the time when the appeal had to be filed. In this regard, it is noted that the assessment order was passed on 08.09.2022 and the Secretary was hospitalized due to complications from Covid-19 and therefore couldn’t hand over the assessment order to the Ld.AR to file the appeal which led to the delay of ‘157’ days in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Considering the fact that the assessee is a Primary Co-operative Credit Society and considering the ill-health of the & 2871/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-21) KK 238 P.N. Patty Veerakkal Pudur – Primary Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. :: 3 ::

Secretary, the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) needs to be condoned and we condone the delay before the Ld.CIT(A) subject to assessee remitting cost of Rs.10,000/- to 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 the same before the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the quantum appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to be decided afresh after hearing the assessee in accordance to law. Coming to the penalty appeal (supra), we note that the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of levy of penalty by noting inter-alia that assessee didn’t file any documents in support its grounds against levy of penalty (refer Para No.5.3) and also taking note of dismissal of quantum appeal and find fault with the omission on the part of assessee not able to substantiate its claim and confirmed the penalty. The assessee is noted to have raised a legal issue against levy of penalty which reads as under:

3) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering that the Assessing Officer did not specify any particular limb under Sub-Section (9) of Section 270A of the Act, making the entire levy vague, ambiguous and unsustainable in law.

3.

Since we have restored the quantum appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A), we restore penalty appeal also back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal as per sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. The assessee is directed to participate and file the & 2871/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-21) KK 238 P.N. Patty Veerakkal Pudur – Primary Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. written submissions/relevant documents to substantiate its grounds of appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) to pass speaking order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

4.

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

Order pronounced on the 04th day of February, 2026, in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →