Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, faced a penalty of Rs. 3,53,560/- under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-18, following a regular assessment under Section 143(3). The assessee's appeal against this penalty before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed due to a delay of 380 days, without condoning the said delay.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, which had dismissed the appeal on the technical ground of delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC with directions to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to a delay of 380 days without condoning it, and the validity of penalty levied u/s 270A including procedural aspects regarding its levy and conduct during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Sections Cited
270A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18.
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. The ld CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in confirming levy of penalty u/s 270A under reporting / misreporting of income.
The ld CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in failing to specify the limb, in the show Cause Notice dated 26.12.2019 under which the Penalty u/s 270A is to be levied. 3. The ld CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in failing to specify the limb in the Penalty Order dated 11.1.2022 under which the Penalty u/s 270A is to be levied. 4. The assesse craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.
5. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in failing to consider that the entire penalty Proceedings were conducted and concluded during the Covid-19 pandemic which is in contravention to the principles of natural justice.”
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and in his case regular assessment order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act was passed and subsequently vide order 11.01.2022 penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act of Rs.3,53,560/- was imposed.
4. Being aggrieved with the above penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with a delay of 380 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.
5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is the sole request of the counsel of the assessee that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may kindly be directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits of the case. In this regard, we find that admittedly Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without going into merits of the case dismissed the appeal only on the technical ground of delay. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents/ evidences/ submissions, if any, in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.