UMESH KUMAR PANDEY,DURG, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI, CHHATTISGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 86/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 April 2026AY 2021-224 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal related to the same assessment year had been remanded back to the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's purchases were deemed unverifiable by the AO, leading to an addition and subsequent penalty under section 270A. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under section 270A was leviable and whether the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM

For Appellant: Ms. Darshana Bhaiya, Advocate
Hearing: 06/04/2026

Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM: This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2021-22 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.01.2026 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Ld. CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed against the penalty order under section 270A of the Act of the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’).

1

2.

Vide six grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act not only on the legality of the impugned order but also on the merit of the case; i.e. the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act.

3.

The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, proprietor of M/s Shree Triveni Engineering Works, engaged in trading of iron & steel products, filed his Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year on 29.03.2022 declaring income of Rs.5,21,430/-. The assessee’s case was picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noticed that some of the suppliers of the assessee were non-filer of their ITR or they had not disclosed any income from business in their ITR. Therefore, the doubting the purchases, the Ld. AO carried out investigations by issuing notices under section 133(6) of the Act to various suppliers as detailed at page Nos. 6 and 7 of the assessment order. Thereafter, the Ld. AO segregated the purchases and tabulated the details and outcome of investigations on page No. 8 to 10 of the assessment order. Based on the outcome of investigations and the details available on the ITBA with respect to certain suppliers, the Ld. AO held that purchases @ 12.5% were unverifiable and taxed the same accordingly. Thereafter, the Ld. AO levied penalty under section 270A of the Act on the addition of unverifiable purchases of Rs.2,05,98,953/- @200% for misrepresenting the income. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex-parte as under:

“4. Proceedings: - Notices u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were issued to the appellant on 27/08/2025, 04/11/2025 & 13/11/2025 to furnish the details by 02/09/2025,

2 11/11/2025 & 20/11/2025 respectively. But no submission/ reply has been received. Sufficient opportunities have been provided to the appellant.

5.

Examination of the issue and decision:

Further appellant was provided final opportunity vide notice 13/11/2025 to substantiate the grounds of appeal raised. But no reply or details have been filed by the appellant till date. Compliance history: .................................................... ....................................................

5.

1 By its own act, the appellant has failed to remain vigilant and did not avail the opportunity to submit its point of view/contention, as it did not respond to various notices issued. The fact that the appellant did receive the order filed the present appeal, but chose not to respond to any of the notices issued by this office clearly establish total disregard to the due process of law. Therefore, the conclusion that the appellant could not controvert the finding given by the AO on merits of the issue is inescapable.

5.

2 In view of the above, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for to the impugned order passed u/s 270A of the Act, and accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the appellant are "Dismissed".’

4.

Before us, Ms. Darshana Bhaiya, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal of the assessee on which the penalty levied had been remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in ITA No.42/RPR/2026 vide order dated 02.04.2026; therefore, she prayed for remanding this case back to the file of the Ld. set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that the appellant assessee has to cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings.

6.

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08/04/2026. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 08/04/2026 HKS, PS आदेशकी "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant ""थ"/ The Respondent

2.3.

The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //// (Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur

4

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →