ANIL KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(2), KOLKATA

For that the Orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.

For that the quantum appeal being pending before the CIT (A), though intimated about the fact of the same, the confirmation of levy of penalty u/s ITA No(s). 3044/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 Anil Kumar Poddar. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was wrong and bad-in-law, liable to be quashed.

For that the Ld. CIT (A) in utter disregard to the provisions of Law specifically noted in Sec.275 of the Act erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

For that the penalty levied was otherwise was wrong and uncalled for and/or high and/or excessive.

For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above Grounds."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2014-15 on 09.02.2015 declaring the total income at ₹3,73,600/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') assessed the total income at ₹25,92,500/- by making additions of ₹20,97,100/- towards unexplained cash deposit and ₹1,21,795/- towards income from share transactions and completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated and the Ld. AO levied penalty of ₹5,95,557/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed continuous non-compliance to the notices issued for hearing, and decided the appeal ex parte on merits based on the available record. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had failed to substantiate with any documentary evidence during the penalty proceeding and finding no infirmity in the order of the Ld. the Ld. AO, confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined.

During the course of appeal before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the appeal against the quantum addition is still pending and, therefore, he requested that the matter may be set aside before the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal against the penalty order on the basis of the outcome of the appeal against the quantum addition. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). After examining the facts of the case and the law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal before him for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order after deciding the outcome of the appeal against the quantum addition. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission he wants to make in support of his grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st September, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 01.09.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)