Case Law Details
Suresh Vadde Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
The assessee appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 16.01.2026 for Assessment Year 2022-23 arising from a penalty order passed under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The assessee filed the return of income on 09.07.2022 declaring total income of ₹5,28,230. The case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS), and notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. After considering the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹51,04,822 and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A(9) for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. By order dated 28.08.2024, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of ₹34,01,234, being 200% of the tax sought to be evaded.
The assessee appealed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) noted that the appeal had been filed with a delay of nine days and, holding that the cause of delay had not been satisfactorily explained, dismissed the appeal in limine.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the delay occurred due to medical issues and that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. The assessee requested that the matter be remanded to the CIT(A). The Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been filed on or before 27.09.2024 but was filed on 06.10.2024 with a delay of nine days. It observed that the assessee had explained before the CIT(A) that health issues had prevented timely filing and that the delay was not intentional. On examining the explanation, the Tribunal held that the assessee was genuinely prevented from filing the appeal within the prescribed time due to unforeseen health issues and circumstances beyond his control.
Considering the interest of justice and the amount of penalty involved, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay of nine days and adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to participate in the remand proceedings without seeking adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals (NFAC, Delhi) [in short “CIT(A)”] vide DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084861260(1) dated 16.01.2026, for the Assessment Year 2022-23 arising out of the Penalty Order passed under section 270A of the Act, dated 28.08.2024.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2022-23 on 09.07.2022 declaring a total income of Rs.5,28,230/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer [in short “AO”] on perusal of the submissions made by the assessee, being not satisfied, made a total addition of Rs.51,04,822/-. The learned AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A(9) of the Act for ‘under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income’. The learned AO vide his order dated 28.08.2024 levied a penalty of Rs.34,01,234/- on under reported income in consequence of misreporting of income which is 200% of the tax sought to be evaded.
3. On being aggrieved by the penalty order of the learned AO, assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) observed that assessee has filed appeal with a delay of 9 days. He also observed as not satisfactorily explained the cause of delay and therefore dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine.
4. On being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising various grounds. At the outset, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits by condoning the delay of 9 days which was due to medical issues underwent by the assessee. He therefore pleaded that assessee has got a strong case on merits, hence, the matter may be remanded back to the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of grounds on merits.
5. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative [in short ‘DR’] relied on the orders of Revenue authorities.
6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is admitted fact that assessee ought to have filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) on or before 27.09.2024 whereas the appeal was filed on 06.10.2024 with a delay of 9 days. While explaining the delay assessee has submitted before the learned CIT(A) that assessee had health issues and could not file the appeal on time which was not intentional. On perusal of the reasons submitted by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), we are of the opinion that assessee was genuinely prevented from filing the appeal within the due date, due to unforeseen health issues and circumstances were beyond assessee’s control. In the interest of justice, considering the huge penalty, we are of the opinion that delay of 9 days deserves to be condoned and we hereby direct the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay of 9 days and adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. The learned CIT(A) shall also provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to participate in remand proceedings without seeking adjournments. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
Author Bio
