2025 (6) TMI 1200 - AT - Income Tax

Taxpayer Wins Appeal Against Penalty Order, Delay Condoned Under Procedural Fairness Principles

ITAT Mumbai allowed an appeal challenging a penalty order, condoning a 300-day delay in filing. The Tribunal noted procedural irregularities, including ... Delay of 300 days in filing of appeal - condonation of delay alongwith affidavit of the assessee - penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- Assessee came to know about the order only during the hearing of the quantum proceedings. For the same assessment year, details were furnished during the course of the hearing and then only it came to the knowledge of the assessee that already ld. CIT(A) had passed penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) even when quantum order was pending. Since assessee was not aware of any exparte order and also due to medical conditions assessee was not aware of any such notice, the appeal could not be filed within the time. Another important fact is that once quantum appeal is pending before the ld. CIT(A) then there was no reason to decide the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c). Accordingly, delay of 300 days is condoned. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of delay of 20 days. The facts relating to the delay is that assessment order u/s.147 was passed in this case on 22/09/2021 and penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) was passed on 21/12/2021. The appeal was filed by the assessee on 09/02/2022. It was due to covid-19 pandemic, the limitation period u/s.249(2) stood extended up to 30/05/2022 in view of the in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance Extension of Limitation [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER]. Thus, the limitation period between 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 was extended up to 90 days. CIT(A) without any reason has dismissed the appeal without looking to the fact that there was no delay due to extension / limitation period by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the delay of 20 days before the ld. CIT(A) is condoned. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits and moreover the quantum appeal is still pending before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, it would be proper that this penalty appeal is set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh after deciding the quantum appeal. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT Mumbai) addressed an appeal filed by the assessee against the NFAC Delhi order dated 28/11/2023 imposing a penalty of Rs. 58,98,604 under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2013-14, related to short-term capital gains from agricultural land sale. The assessee sought condonation of a 300-day delay in filing the appeal, citing severe medical conditions and lack of awareness of the ex parte penalty order. The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the penalty should not have been decided while the quantum appeal was pending before the CIT(A).Further, the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to a 20-day delay, ignoring the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic (Cognizance Extension of Limitation, 441 ITR 722 (SC)). The Tribunal also condoned this delay.Since the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits and the quantum appeal remains pending, the Tribunal set aside the penalty appeal for fresh adjudication after the quantum appeal's disposal. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.