RANVEER SINGH SURYAWANSHI,DHAR vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) upholding a penalty of Rs. 29,32,874/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal, citing a substantial delay of 138 days in filing, attributing it to the appellant's technological illiteracy and remote residence.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment order was pending before the CIT(A). Considering this, and the pendency of the quantum appeal, the Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned penalty order and remand the matter back to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed with a delay of 138 days is maintainable, and whether the penalty order should be sustained while the quantum assessment order is still pending.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 253, 246A, 249
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:
This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of
the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the
Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way
of a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order
bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078632415
(1) dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 250 of
the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned
order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2016-17 and the
Page 1 of 8
Ranveer Singh Suryawanshi ITA No. 641/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2016-17
corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2015 to
31.03.2016.
Factual Matrix
2.1 That as and by way of an penalty order made u/s 271(1)
(c) of the Act, a penalty of Rs. 29,32,874/- was imposed on
the assessee. The aforesaid penalty order bears no: -
ITBA/PNL/F/271(1) (C)/2024-25/1067563270(1) and that
the same is dated 09.08.2024, which is herein after referred
to as the “impugned penalty order”
2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid
“impugned penalty order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246
A of the act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned
order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the
grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and
reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal was as under:-
2.1 As per Form No.35, the date of service of Demand Notice is
stated to be. 25.01.2025, which is not acceptable. The order
was duly served on the appellant electronically means on
registered email as per Rule 127 of Income tax Rules, 1962.
Page 2 of 8
Ranveer Singh Suryawanshi ITA No. 641/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2016-17
As per section 249(2) of the Act, the appeal has to be filed
within 30 days of the service of the order to the appellant.
However, the appeal has been filed on 25.01.2025. In this
case, the order was duly served on the appellant on
09.08.2025 on registered email. The appeal is, therefore, filed
late by 138 days i.e. 4 months and 16 days. Thus, there is
substantial delay in filing of the appeal.
2.7 In this case, the appellant has stated the following
reason for condonation of delay in Form No. 35, Col. No. 14.
There is no delay in filing of appeal as the Appellant was
not aware about the order passed under penalty provisions
since Appellant is technologically illiterate and resides in
remote village of Datwada. When recovery notices were
received the Appellant became aware about the penalty order
and the appeal is filed immediately.
2.8 The appellant in Column No. 15 of Form 35 has stated that
he was unaware of the order passed under penalty
proceedings since the appellant is technologically illiterate.
However, the appellant's unawareness is his own negligence.
The reason stated by appellant does not hold any strong
Page 3 of 8
Ranveer Singh Suryawanshi ITA No. 641/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2016-17
ground for the condonation of delay. Hence, the appellant has
not discharged the onus of "sufficient cause" within the
meaning of section 249 of the I.T. Act. Hence, the delay in
filing of appeal after 138 days cannot be accepted.
2.9 Hence in view of these facts and on the strength of the
judicial decisions referred on the pre-pages the delay in filing
the appeal does not merit condonation and the appeal is
treated to be filed late with reference to the provisions of
section 249(3) of the Act.
Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is Dismissed.
2.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order”
has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal
and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the form
no. 36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:-
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law
the learned CIT (A) erred in upholding levy of penalty
under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.
Page 4 of 8
Ranveer Singh Suryawanshi ITA No. 641/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2016-17
29,32,874/-by ld AO. The Appellant prays that the said
penalty be directed to be deleted.
The impugned order has been passed in a haste manner,
without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the
Appellant. The Appellant prays that the order being
illegal, unwarranted and in gross violation of principles
of natural justice be directed to be quashed and
consequent addition deleted.
The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and/OR
amend all OR any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.
Record of Hearing
3.1 The hearing in the mater took place before this Tribunal
on 10.02.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the
assessee appeared before us and interalia contended that in
the “impugned order” the issue is of penalty under the act
whereas the “quantum assessment order” bearing no:-
ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1061515538(1) dated
is pending before the Ld. CIT(A) in a separate 26/02/2024
first appeal under the act which is not yet decided.
Page 5 of 8
Ranveer Singh Suryawanshi ITA No. 641/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2016-17
Therefore it would be just fair and convenient and in the
interest of justice that the impugned order be set aside and
the matter be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). It was
also prayed that a direction be issued to Ld. CIT(A) to
consider “Quantum appeal first” and thereafter the first
appeal on the penalty issue be considered after giving full
opportunity wherein the outcome of “Quantum first appeal
may also be considered”. Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for
and on behalf of the revenue stated that revenue has no
objection to the contention made by Ld. AR and has left the
issue to be decided by this tribunal basis it’s wisdom.
Observations Findings & conclusions
4.1 We now have to decide the legality validity & proprietary
of the “Impugned order” basis records of the case & the
rival submissions canvassed before us.
4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case & have
heard the submissions.
4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & upon
examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR as Ld. DR
Page 6 of 8
Ranveer Singh Suryawanshi ITA No. 641/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2016-17
canvassed before us are of the considered view that the
“impugned penalty order” is under section 271(1)( C) of the
act. In so far as Quantum assessment order of Ld. AO is
concerned the same is pending hearing and final disposal
before the Ld. CIT (A) in a separate appeal as stated by Ld.
AR. Under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
we are of the considered opinion that the “impugned order”
which deals with penalty should be set aside and matter
should be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) who
should take up the instant first appeal on penalty issue u/s
271(1) (c) of the act after decision of Ld. CIT (A) on
Quantum issue is decided in first appeal.
4.4 In the premises drawn up by us, we set aside the
“impugned order” and remand the case back to the file of Ld.
CIT (A) who shall now pass a speaking and well-reasoned
order after the first appeal on Quantum assessment is
disposed off.
Order 5
Page 7 of 8
Ranveer Singh Suryawanshi ITA No. 641/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2016-17
5.1 In the result “Impugned order” is set aside as and by way
of remand back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) with direction as
contained in Para 4.3 & 4.4 (supra) .
5.2. The Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Pronounced in open court on 19.02.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Indore Dated : 19/01/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 8 of 8
