TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 12.08.2025 passed by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act confirming penalty levied under section 270A of the Act vide penalty order dated 15.03.2024. Since both appeals emanate from the same assessment and involve interconnected issues, they are disposed of by this common order. ITA No. 6680/Mum/2025 2. At the outset, it is noted that the quantum appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 1023 days. The order of the learned CIT(A) in quantum proceedings is dated 27.10.2022 and was admittedly received by the assessee on the same date. The appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been filed on or before 26.12.2022. However, the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 1023 days. 3. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn by its Director. In the affidavit, it is stated that after the learned CIT(A) partly allowed relief by deleting the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets and sustained only the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of Rs. 9,90,000/-, the assessee, considering the quantum of tax involved and with a view to avoid protracted and costly litigation, conscio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considered litigation strategy. 9. In this context, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798) squarely applies. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that while the expression "sufficient cause" deserves liberal construction in cases of short delay, a clear distinction must be drawn where the delay is inordinate, and in such cases a more cautious approach is warranted. The Court has emphasized that in cases of substantial delay, the explanation must be convincing and satisfactory. In the present case, the delay is not of a few days but of 1023 days. The explanation furnished does not satisfy the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as it discloses no bona fide impediment but only a conscious choice not to avail the statutory remedy within limitation. 10. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The application seeking condonation of delay in ITA No. 6680/Mum/2025 is therefore rejected. As a necessary consequence, the quantum appeal stands dismissed in limine as barred by limitation, without entering....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. Ground 4: No furnishing of inaccurate particulars 4.1 The Appellant has not furnished any inaccurate particulars in its revised ROI. The revised return was filed in accordance with the applicable laws, and all relevant disclosures were made in good faith. 5. Ground 5: Penalty levied u/s 270A is not automatic or mechanical 5.1 On facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO/CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that penalty u/s 270A of the Act is not automatic or mechanical and cannot be imposed merely because a disallowance has been made, especially where the Appellant company has voluntarily and in good faith accepted the disallowance on its own. 5.2 On facts and circumstances of the case, and in law that mere acceptance of an addition by the Assessee does not imply concealment of income. 5.3 On facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the penalty order is bad in law and liable to be quashed, as it fails to satisfy the mandatory requirement of establishing either misreporting or under-reporting of income attributable to any deliberate act or omission on the part of the Appellant company. All the abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ific exclusions and provides that certain amounts shall not be regarded as under-reported income. Clause (a) thereof stipulates that where the assessee offers an explanation and the authority is satisfied that such explanation is bona fide and that all material facts to substantiate the explanation have been disclosed, such amount shall not be included for the purposes of penalty. 18. In the present case, penalty has been levied at 200% by invoking section 270A(8) on the premise that the case involves "misreporting" under section 270A(9)(a), namely, misrepresentation or suppression of facts. For invocation of misreporting, the statute specifically enumerates categories such as misrepresentation or suppression of facts, failure to record investments, recording false entries, failure to record receipts, and similar acts involving factual falsity or concealment. 19. The addition in question arises out of disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80G. There is no finding in the assessment order or the penalty order that the assessee suppressed any material fact, recorded false entries, furnished fabricated evidence, or failed to disclose any receipt or investment. The dispu....