Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a penalty of Rs. 5,21,114 levied under Section 270A for Assessment Year 2017-18, which was affirmed by the CIT(A). The underlying quantum addition, on which the penalty was based, had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT in a prior order, leading to a recomputation of income. There was also a 13-day delay in filing the appeal, for which condonation was sought and granted.
Held
The Tribunal found that since the quantum appeal, which was the basis for the Section 270A penalty, had already been allowed in favour of the assessee by a previous ITAT order, the penalty itself lacked foundation. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Key Issues
Whether a penalty levied under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act is sustainable if the underlying quantum addition, upon which the penalty was based, has been quashed by the ITAT in a separate proceeding.
Sections Cited
270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
Order
: 30.12.2025 ORDER
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 23.08.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 affirming the penalty order dated 08.12.2021 passed u/s 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
The assessee has raised various grounds to challenge the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act of an amount of Rs.5,21,114/-.
At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT is barred by 13 days. He submitted that an application for condonation of delay was filed stating the reasons for the delay. He submitted that the delay was not intentional or deliberate and was beyond the assessee’s control, hence he pleaded to condone the same.
On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue has no objection in condoning the delay.
We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal against which the impugned penalty u/s 270A was levied has already been decided by the ITAT in favour of the assessee in vide order dated 14.10.2022 for AY 2017-18 and pursuant to the order of the ITAT, an order giving effect to the said order was passed on 07.12.2022 wherein the income of the assessee was recomputed as per the relief granted. Accordingly, in view of the above, he pleaded that since the quantum appeal is already allowed in favour of