, , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण इंदौर (cid:586)ायपीठ इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.641/Ind/2025 (AY: 2016-17)

Ranveer Singh Suryawanshi, बनाम/ ITO, Dhar Datwada Datwade, Vs.

Indore, MP (PAN:AWLPS7673N)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Ajay Tulsiyan,CA &

Ruchira Singhal, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078632415 (1) dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2016-17 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2015 to

31.03.2016.

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 That as and by way of an penalty order made u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, a penalty of Rs. 29,32,874/- was imposed on the assessee. The aforesaid penalty order bears no: - ITBA/PNL/F/271(1) (C)/2024-25/1067563270(1) and that the same is dated 09.08.2024, which is herein after referred to as the “impugned penalty order”

2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246 A of the act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal was as under:-

2.1 As per Form No.35, the date of service of Demand Notice is stated to be. 25.01.2025, which is not acceptable. The order was duly served on the appellant electronically means on registered email as per Rule 127 of Income tax Rules, 1962.

As per section 249(2) of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within 30 days of the service of the order to the appellant. However, the appeal has been filed on 25.01.2025. In this case, the order was duly served on the appellant on 09.08.2025 on registered email. The appeal is, therefore, filed late by 138 days i.e. 4 months and 16 days. Thus, there is substantial delay in filing of the appeal.

2.7 In this case, the appellant has stated the following reason for condonation of delay in Form No. 35, Col. No. 14.

There is no delay in filing of appeal as the Appellant was not aware about the order passed under penalty provisions since Appellant is technologically illiterate and resides in remote village of Datwada. When recovery notices were received the Appellant became aware about the penalty order and the appeal is filed immediately.

2.8 The appellant in Column No. 15 of Form 35 has stated that he was unaware of the order passed under penalty proceedings since the appellant is technologically illiterate. However, the appellant's unawareness is his own negligence. The reason stated by appellant does not hold any strong ground for the condonation of delay. Hence, the appellant has not discharged the onus of "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 of the I.T. Act. Hence, the delay in filing of appeal after 138 days cannot be accepted.

2.9 Hence in view of these facts and on the strength of the judicial decisions referred on the pre-pages the delay in filing the appeal does not merit condonation and the appeal is treated to be filed late with reference to the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act.

3. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is Dismissed.

2.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the form no. 36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in up