AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2019-20.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts by failing to condone the delay of 144 days in filing the appeal and dismissing the same in limine without adjudicating on the merits of the case.
2.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law by passing the order without granting an opportunity of personal hearing and thereby denying a fair opportunity to be heard to the Appellant
3.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty under section 270A when the underlying additions were made purely on an estimated basis by applying a flat rate of 8% on gross turnover.
4.That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the additions were based on the AO's estimate rather than any misrepresentation or suppression of facts and thereby the penalty for misreporting of income could not have been levied.
5.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in issuing the show-cause notice for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act without specifying the particular clause of section 270A(9) pursuant to which the penalty was purportedly proposed to be levied, thereby denying effective opportunity of defense to the Appellant.
6.The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or vary any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income at Rs.7,03,950/- on a declared turnover of Rs.13,03,17,483/- and purchase of Rs.12,72,30,296/-. The assessee’s case was reopened based on the information received in accordance with RMS formulated by CBDT, on Insight Portal under the High Risk CRIU/VRU regarding financial transaction which has escaped assessment as the assessee has received Rs.6,85,402/- as duty drawback during the year under consideration without any export realisation and that the assessee was holding multiple PANs for the purpose of evading legitimate taxes and had also received accommodation entries of sales during the relevant year amounting to Rs.5,05,000/- from Shri Manish and Rs.20,05,335/- from Shri Ravi Kumar. After duly considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act dated 06.01.2025 determining the total income at Rs.1,48,81,623/-, after making various additions.
The Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under reporting and consequent misreporting of income. The Ld. AO issued notice u/s 270A of the Act dated 06.01.2025. The Ld. AO then passed the penalty order dated 24.07.2025 u/s 270A of the Act thereby levying penalty amounting to Rs.69,21,924/- on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim with supporting documentary evidences
Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who, vide order dated 27.01.2026, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 144 days in filing the first appeal on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for the said delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR for the assessee prayed that the assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case before the First Appellate Authority on the ground that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay in filing the first appeal beyond the period of limitation. The Ld. AR also stated that the quantum appeal is pending before the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. The ld. DR vehemently opposed setting aside of the issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee has been non-compliant throughout the proceedings before the lower authorities. On the above facts of the case, we deem it fit to extend the assessee one more opportunity to present his case before the First Appellate Authority by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without any undue delay from his side. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.