TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounds raised for the assessment year 2009-10 are reproduced as under: 1. The Penalty order dated 18-03-2019 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has no legs to stand. 2. The Impugned Penalty order has no validity since the quantum appeal is still pending before the first appellate authority as on date. 3. The order of appeal passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act dated 04.12.2024 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay of 1039 days in filing the appeal before him and without appreciating that the appellant has reasonable and sufficient cause for such delay in filing of the appeal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in existence, then the confirmation of the penalty is unjustified and highly arbitrary. He has further submitted that before the Ld.CIT(A), the case was not properly represented on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. He has filed a petition for condonation of delay, which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee for all the seven years, explaining the cause of delay of 1039 days in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). The main reason now explained by the assessee in the petition for condonation of delay as well as supporting affidavit is that the assessee was not aware about the penalty imposed by the department and only after receiving the demand notice on 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... huge delay of 1039 days in filing the appeal. The Ld.DR has further contended that now the assessee has filed fresh petition for condonation of delay as well as affidavit, taking altogether a new stand before this Tribunal, which cannot be accepted. The change of stand by the assessee, explaining the cause of delay is nothing but an afterthought and taking an undue advantage of the process of law. Thus, he has vehemently objected to the condonation of delay and relied upon the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the material placed on record. Undisputedly, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) against the penalty order belatedly and explained the cause of delay, which was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petition. The reasons explained by the assessee as stated in the affidavit are as under : Affidavit for Condonation of Delay I, Avva Sitarama Rao, hereby state that, I am acquainted with the facts of the case in respect of appeal which has been filed before the Hon'ble ITAT for the Assessment Year 2009-10, and state that: The Penalty Order was passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 18.03.2019, which is prejudicial to my interest. The assessee was aware of the penalty imposed by the department only after the receival of demand notice on 10.01.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee had also filed a request for issue of certified copy of the penalty order dated 23.02.2022. Therefore, we are aggrieved of the above order and the remed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on the assessee only on 20.05.2025, however, this plea taken by the assessee is contrary to the record as the said order was already challenged by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) and also a copy of which has been filed by the assessee along with the memo of appeals filed before this Tribunal. Therefore, this plea of the assessee that the order was not served on the assessee and only on 20.05.2025, the AO has supplied the orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) is contrary to the record. Apart from this, there is a further development after the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 30.03.2025 has deleted the additions against which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied for the A.Y.2010-11 to 2014-15 as well as remitted t....