GOOGEE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2460/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2026AY 2022-237 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the fate of the penalty orders was dependent on the outcome of the pending quantum appeal. Therefore, the CIT(A) should not have adjudicated the penalty appeals before the quantum appeal was decided.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals against penalty orders under sections 270A and 271B were dismissed by the CIT(A) while the quantum appeal against the assessment order was pending. The assessee argued that the penalty orders were unsustainable if the assessment order was invalid.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 271B can be adjudicated when the validity of the underlying assessment order is under challenge and pending adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 271B,Section 143(3),Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Hearing: 11.05.2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA.Nos.2459 & 2460/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2022-2023 Googee Properties The DCIT, vs. Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad – 500 035. Hyderabad – 500 001. Telangana. Telangana. PAN AAGCG9875L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by : Sri C Maheshwar Reddy, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by : MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 11.05.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.05.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against the two separate Orders of the learned CIT(A) both dated 13.10.2025 arising from penalty orders passed u/sec.270A and u/sec.271B of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961, respectively.

2 ITA.Nos.2459 & 2460/Hyd./2025 ITA.No.2459/Hyd./2025 – A.Y. 2022-2023:

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

“The Ld. CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad erred on facts and in law while dismissing the appeal. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have cancelled the penalty of Rs.3,42,30,831/- levied u/s.270A of the Act. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the very assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the act dated 24.08.2022 is invalid ab-initio where by the penalty levied u/s 2718 of the Act vide order dated 20.03.2025 becomes invalid. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessment made u/s.143(3) dated 24.08.2024 is barred by limitation provided in sec.153 of the IT Act. 5. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have cancelled the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act on the ground that there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of any income for the year under consideration.

6.

The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the addition made of Rs.23,60,74,696/-towards undisclosed income

3 ITA.Nos.2459 & 2460/Hyd./2025 is only on estimation basis. Thus, penalty levied on such amount has no basis and liable to be deleted. 7. The Appellant craves to add/alter/leave/modify any grounds at the time of hearing.” ITA.No.2460/Hyd./2025 – A.Y. 2022-2023:

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

“The Ld. CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad erred on facts and in law while dismissing the appeal.

2.

The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have cancelled the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- levied u/s.271B of the Act. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the very assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the act dated 24.08.2022 is invalid ab-initio where by the penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act vide order dated 20.03.2025 becomes invalid. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessment made u/s.143(3) dated 24.08.2024 is barred by limitation provided in sec.153 of the IT Act. 5. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have cancelled the penalty levied on the ground that there is a reasonable cause for not getting the books audited in time as referred to in sec.273B of the Act.

4 ITA.Nos.2459 & 2460/Hyd./2025 6. The Appellant craves to add/alter/leave/modify any grounds at the time of hearing.”

4.

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the quantum appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order is pending adjudication before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee against the levy of penalty u/sec.270A as well as u/sec.271B of the Act. Thus, he has pleaded that the impugned orders passed by the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and matters may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the same afresh after the adjudication of the quantum appeal filed by the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer being barred by limitation provided u/sec.153 of the Act in the quantum appeal then the penalty levied u/sec.270A as well as u/sec.271B are not sustainable. Since the learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal filed by the assessee against the

5 ITA.Nos.2459 & 2460/Hyd./2025 assessment order and particularly, validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer therefore, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied u/sec.270A as well as u/sec.271B of the Act are liable to be set aside.

5.

On the other hand, the learned DR has fairly admitted that the quantum appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order is pending adjudication before the learned CIT(A) and therefore, the matters may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after adjudication of the quantum appeal.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. As both the parties have admitted this fact that the quantum appeal filed by the assessee and challenging the validity of the assessment order is pending adjudication before the learned CIT(A) therefore, the fate of the penalty levied u/sec.270A as well as 271B is dependent on the outcome of the quantum appeal pending adjudication before the learned CIT(A). The assessee has specifically raised the issue before the learned CIT(A) in the

6 ITA.Nos.2459 & 2460/Hyd./2025 penalty proceedings regarding the validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) of the Act being barred by limitation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, until and unless the quantum appeal is adjudicated, the learned CIT(A) ought not to have adjudicated the appeals against the penalty orders u/sec.270A as well as u/sec.271B of the Act. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned penalty orders passed by the learned CIT(A) u/sec.270A as well as u/sec.271B of the Act and matters are remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the appeals against the penalty orders after the adjudication of the quantum appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files

7 ITA.Nos.2459 & 2460/Hyd./2025 Order pronounced in the open Court on 15.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA] [VIJAY PAL RAO] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 15th May, 2026 VBP Copy to: Googee Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad. 1. C/o. B. Narsing Rao & Co. LLP, Plot No.554, Road No.92, MLA Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. PIN – 500 096. Telangana. The DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad – 500 001. 2. Telangana. 3. The CIT(A), Hyderabad-11, Hyderabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-(Central), Hyderabad. 5. The DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 6. Guard file. BY ORDER VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.05.15 RAO 11:26:50 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →