SANDIP GANPAT LOKHANDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(2), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2628/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to decide the appeal afresh on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to cooperate by responding to notices and producing documents without seeking adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, faced a penalty of Rs. 3,59,726/- under Section 270A of the IT Act following a regular assessment under Section 143(3). The assessee's appeal against this penalty before the CIT(A)/NFAC was filed with a delay of 1 year and 5 months, which included the COVID period. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal solely on the technical ground of delay without condoning it or addressing the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the technical ground of delay without condoning it, particularly when the delay included the COVID period, and if the matter should be remanded for a decision on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare
For Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha
Hearing: 22.12.2025Pronounced: 05.01.2026

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal by not condoning the delay without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of penalty u/s 270A at Rs 3,59,726/- towards alleged misreporting of income.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

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 04.08.2021 penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act of Rs.3,59,726/- 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 1 year and 5 months, 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 since the period of delay involves covid period also. 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 which includes covid period also. 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

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →