SUMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (E)-2(3), MUMBAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई पीठ�, मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI ‘C’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 2556 & 2557/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Suman Educational Trust Income Tax Officer (E)-2(3) 6th Floor, Mtnl Bldg Cumballa 39-A, 3rd Floor, Maker Tower F Cuff Parade Colaba., Mumbai- Vs. Hills Pedder Road, 400005, Maharashtra Mumbai-400026, Maharashtra अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

PAN: AAHTS1944E

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Prakash K. Jotwani ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Ajay Soneji, SR. DR

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 14th July, 2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 27.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER

PER: Saktijit Dey, Vice President

Captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the confirmation of penalties imposed under Sections 270A and 271AAC of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2020-21 and they arise out of two separate orders, both dated 10.10.2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi.

appeals. Having considered the reasons furnished by the assessee for the delay,

we are satisfied that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any

negligence on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay and

admit the appeals for adjudication.

and religious purposes. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed

its return of income on 5.2.2021, declaring Nil income. However, while

completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made a couple of additions on

account of disallowance of depreciation and unexplained cash credit, resulting in

determination of income at Rs.14,73,01,446/- as against income computed of

Rs.10,93,09,701/- under section 143(1)(a) of the Act.

proceedings for imposition of penalty under sections 270A and 271AAC of the

Act and ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed orders imposing penalties under

the aforesaid provisions. The penalties so imposed were confirmed by learned

First Appellate Authority.

that while deciding the quantum appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

(ITAT), had set aside the assessment order with a direction for de novo adjudication of the issues raised in appeals. In this context, he drew our attention

to order dated 6.3.2026 passed in ITA No. 8998/MUM/2025. On perusal of the

said order, we are convinced that as on date, the assessment order based on which

the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalties were imposed is no more in

existence. Thus, when the additions based upon which the penalties have been

imposed not in existence, the penalty cannot survive. Accordingly, we have no

hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders of the Assessing Officer imposing

penalties under sections 270A and 271AAC of the Act. Simultaneously, we set

aside the impugned orders of the learned First Appellate Authority. Needless to

mention, depending upon the decision to be taken in pursuance to the directions

of ITAT in the quantum proceeding, the assessing officer, if warranted, can

initiate penalty proceedings afresh.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Girish Agrawal) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Dated: 27/07/2026 Mumbai Aks/- Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai