ARADHYA GHOSH,KOLKATA V. DEPTUY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-67(1), DELHI

ITA 5210/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Aradhya Ghosh against a penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle 67 (1), under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The penalty was affirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The primary contention in the appeal was the validity of the penalty following a favorable decision in a related quantum appeal (ITA No.1788/Del/2022) by the ITAT, which had led to a recomputation of the assessee's income. Both parties agreed that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and beyond the assessee's control, leading to the condonation of the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824668 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2024
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.1788/Del/2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: SRINATH L
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5210 /DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Aradhya Ghosh, vs. DCIT, Circle 67 (1), Nabakailash, 10-F, 55/4, Delhi. Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata – 700 019. (PAN : AAFPG5069A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Shri Srinath L, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date of Order : 30.12.2025 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 23.08.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 affirming the penalty order dated 08.12.2021 passed u/s 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised various grounds to challenge the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act of an amount of Rs.5,21,114/-. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.5210/DEL/2024 3. At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT is barred by 13 days. He submitted that an application for condonation of delay was filed stating the reasons for the delay. He submitted that the delay was not intentional or deliberate and was beyond the assessee’s control, hence he pleaded to condone the same. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue has no objection in condoning the delay. 5. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal against which the impugned penalty u/s 270A was levied has already been decided by the ITAT in favour of the assessee in ITA No.1788/Del/2022 vide order dated 14.10.2022 for AY 2017-18 and pursuant to the order of the ITAT, an order giving effect to the said order was passed on 07.12.2022 wherein the income of the assessee was recomputed as per the relief granted. Accordingly, in view of the above, he pleaded that since the quantum appeal is already allowed in favour of Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.5210/DEL/2024 the assessee, the penalty on the basis of the same has no legs to stand and the same is to be quashed and the appeal of the assessee be allowed. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue did not controvert the aforesaid facts. However, he submitted that the appeal against the quantum addition allowed by the ITAT, is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that the quantum appeal being ITA No.1788/Del/2022 has been allowed by the ITAT in favour of the assessee and a copy of the order is also placed on record. Since the quantum appeal is decided in favour of the assessee, the penalty appeal is required to be quashed. Accordingly, in view of the above, we are inclined to quash the penalty order and allow the grounds raised by the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of December, 2025. sd/- sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30.12.2025 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals). 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "