Hebsiba Daniel Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Bangalore ITAT Condones 52-Day Delay in Section 270A Penalty Appeal: Directs CIT(A) to Decide Penalty Along With Quantum Appeal
The assessee, who was pursuing studies and subsequently residing in Canada, faced additions relating to an alleged ₹23.12 lakh gift from her husband and unexplained expenditure under Section 69C towards purchase of foreign currency/remittances. The AO subsequently levied penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting of income at 50% of the tax payable.
The assessee’s appeal against the penalty was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 52 days, which the CIT(A) refused to condone, dismissing the appeal on limitation. The assessee explained that she was residing abroad, there were time-zone differences and dependence on the e-filing portal under the faceless regime, resulting in the delay.
The ITAT noted that the quantum appeal arising from the very same additions had earlier been restored to the CIT(A) after the Tribunal condoned the delay therein. It found the reasons for the 52-day delay in the penalty appeal to be genuine. Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the penalty appeal to the CIT(A), directing that both the quantum and Section 270A penalty appeals be decided simultaneously.
The assessee’s appeal was accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 14/11/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2019-20 in which the penalty u/s. 270A has been confirmed by dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and not filed her return of income. Based on the information that the assessee had purchased foreign currency and also made foreign remittance and also received salary from International Justice Mission, the AO had alleged that income has escaped from assessment and notice u/s. 148 was issued. Thereafter the assessee filed her return of income. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. The assessee filed their submissions along with documents. The AO thereafter issued notices u/s. 143(2) and show cause notice but the assessee had not responded to the said notices and therefore the AO had concluded that no documents are made available to support the contention that her husband gifted the amount of Rs. 23,12,000/-. Similarly, the AO had treated the purchase of foreign currency as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act since the source was not furnished.
3. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was doing her MBA in Canada University for which she received cash from her husband and parents which were utilized for making the foreign remittance towards the tuition fees and for expenses. The assessee also enclosed the supporting documents to show that there is no escapement of any income. The appeal was filed with a delay of 38 days and the assessee also stated that because of the hospitalization, the appeal could not be filed in time. The Ld.CIT(A) not satisfied with the reasons had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.
4. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 23/06/2026 in ITA No. 1792/Bang/2026 had considered the reasons stated by the assessee for the said delay and satisfied that the assessee was having sufficient reasons for not presenting the appeal in time before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore condoned the said delay and remitted the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merits.
5. Thereafter the AO had initiated proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act on the additions made on account of unexplained expenditure. The assessee furnished the details and also informed that the assessee had challenged the quantum order before the Ld.CIT(A). The AO concluded that the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) against the additions was filed with a delay and the assessee had also not furnished any details about the condonation of delay by the Ld.CIT(A) and on that score, the AO had proceeded to decide the penalty on merits and confirmed the penalty u/s. 270A of the Act for underreporting of income at 50% of the tax payable on the underreported income.
6. As against the said penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 52 days. The Ld.CIT(A) not satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application to condone the delay, had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.
7. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.
8. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is pursuing her studies in Canada and thereafter relocated and residing in Canada along with her husband. The Ld.AR therefore submitted that because of her residence in outside India, difference in time zones and complete reliance on the income tax e-filing portal under the faceless regime, there was some misunderstanding and the delay has been occurred but the Ld.CIT(A) without condoning the said delay had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The Ld.AR also brought to our notice that the similar order of the Ld.CIT(A) in the quantum appeal was already set aside by this Tribunal and remitted to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore prayed that the present penalty appeal may also be remitted to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating the same along with the quantum appeal.
9. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
10. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
11. The Ld.CIT(A), in the quantum appeal had not condoned the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Thereafter, the said order was challenged before this Tribunal and the Tribunal also vide its order dated 23/06/2026 in ITA No. 1792/Bang/2026 had accepted the reasons stated by the assessee and condoned the delay and remitted the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merits. Thereafter the AO had levied penalty u/s. 270A of the Act on the additions by saying that the quantum appeal was filed with a delay and no order condoning the said delay has been furnished and therefore confirmed the penalty on merits.
12. We have also gone through the reasons given by the assessee for the delay of 52 days in filing the penalty appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The reasons given by the assessee seems to be a genuine one and also considering the fact that quantum appeal was already restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A), we are also condoning the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the penalty issue along with the quantum appeal which was already remitted to the Ld.CIT(A). We also direct the Ld.CIT(A) to decide both the quantum as well as the penalty appeals simultaneously.
13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06th August, 2026.
