NIRAMAYA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. CIRCLE 8 , AKRUDI, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3106/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 April 2026AY 2019-20204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee received an amount of ₹2,00,000 or more not through specified modes, leading to a penalty under Section 271DA. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271DA for violation of Section 269ST was justified, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 269ST,Section 271DA,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 15.04.2026Pronounced: 20.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH PUNE

BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.3106/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Niramaya Hospital Pvt. Ltd, The ACIT/ S. No. 4742, National Behind Jaihind Petrol Pump vs. Faceless Chinchwad Station Assessment Pune- 411019 Centre(NFAC), PAN : AABCN2330A Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Assessee : Shri Hari Krishan.AR For Revenue : Shri Ratnakar Shelake.Addl JCIT

Date of Hearing : 15.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.04.2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appeal is filed by the assessee against the ex parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC passed u/sec 250 of the Act.The assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the sustainment of penalty levied u/sec271DA of the Act by the Assessing Officer (AO). 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in running a multi specialty hospital having critical care facilities, emergency care facilities and outpatient facilities. Whereas the Assessing Officer(A.O) based on the information provided by the assessee company in Form No.

61A filed online found that the assessee has received an amount of ₹200000/- or more other wise by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account. 3. The A.O has issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act on the assessee to submit details in respect of the cash received. Since the assessee has violated provisions of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act and the assessee is liable to penalty u/sec 271DA of the Act.The A.O has issued show cause notices to submit the clarifications. In compliance, the assessee has filed the explanations on various dates referred at Para2 of the penalty order. Whereas, the Assessing Officer has dealt on the submissions and was not satisfied with the explanations and levied penalty of ₹ 1,74,11,642/- and passed the order u/sec 271DA of the Act dated 12-01-2022.

4.

Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed appeal with the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and finding of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee to the notices, therefore, CIT(A) considering information on record has confirmed the levy of penalty by the AO and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO overlooking the information and explanations filed in the penalty proceedings and the Ld.AR mentioned that non-compliance of notices before the CIT(A) is not a wanton act and the assessee has a good case of merits and shall substantiate with material evidences and prayed for an opportunity before the Lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of CIT(A). 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material Prima facie CIT(A) has passed the order on record. considering the facts that there is no compliance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and notices were issued. Therefore, CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismiss the appeal ex-parte confirming the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer. Whereas the CIT(A) has issued notices on various dates referred at Page 6 Para 7 of the order but there was no response. Whereas the assesse has raised grounds of appeal challenging the penalty levied u/sec271DA of the Act by the Assessing Officer (AO).and there could be various reasons for non appearance/ non compliance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, submissions and principles of natural justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, We set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue of penalty levied to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.04.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (DIPAK P RIPOTE) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated: 20th April, 2026 Abhishek Copy of the Order forwarded to:-

1.

The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. PCIT concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File.

//True Copy//

By Order //True Copy Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 269ST

All 204 judgments and leading authorities on Section 269ST →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →