PUNEET KATIYAR,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3)(5), KANPUR

ITA 1007/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 March 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after the revenue raised no objection. Both parties agreed that the matter regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(c) should be restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo order, to be passed after the disposal of the assessee's pending appeal against the assessment order. The impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) was accordingly set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2016-17 against a CIT(A) order that dismissed the appeal against a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed beyond the statutory time limit, for which the assessee sought condonation of delay, and a related appeal against the assessment order was still pending.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was validly levied, pending the outcome of the assessment appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate

(A)

This appeal vide I.T.A. No.1007/LKW/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016-17 against impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1079085588(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B)

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short).

The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →