DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SAMITI LASADIYA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI UDAYAN DASGUPTA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1834 &1835/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2019-20)

DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Vs. Income Tax Officer Samiti Lasadiya Ward-2(2), Village Lasadiya, Tehsil Ajmer. Kekri, Ajmer, Kekri- 305406. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AACAD7776M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Thr. V.C.) Respondent by : Smt. Namita Patel, JCIT Date of Hearing 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 02.07.2026 O R D E R

Per: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member Both appeals relate to the same assessee ,for the same assessment years, however arise from separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) in separate proceedings, one pertaining to the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1834 & 1835/JPR/2025 DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Samiti Lasadiya while other pertaining to the levy of penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. 2. We shall first take up assessees appeal in ITA No. 1834/JPR/2025.The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under:- “1. That confirming the penalty as levied u/sec. 271AAC(1) of Act for Rs. 490923/- is bad in law for the reasons (a) Quantum appeal on which penalty levied is still pending with CIT(A) as already intimated. (b) Ld CIT(A) has confirmed this penalty by not condoning the delay even after submitting the facts/reasons. 2. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 3. In the impugned appeal, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act on account of addition made to itsincome under section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, of unexplained money amounting to Rs. 81,82,058/-. The AO levied penalty on the said addition under section 271AAC(1) of the Act @ 10% of the tax on the addition made under section 69A of the Act, resulting in penalty of Rs. 4,90,923/- being levied on the assessee. 4. At the outset itself Learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the impugned addition on which penalty was levied ,stood deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order passed in quantum proceedings dated 11.12.2025.Copy of the order was placed before us and it was pointed out there from , from para 6 of the order that the addition of Rs. 81,82,058/- made in the hands of the assessee under section 69A of the Act was deleted and the consequential tax under section 115BBE of the Act was also cancelled.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1834 & 1835/JPR/2025 DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Samiti Lasadiya 5. At this juncture it was pointed out at bar to the Learned counsel for the assessee that the AO in his order passed under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act levying penalty on the assessee had noted at para 6 of his order that the assessee had not preferred any appeal against the assessment order. To this Learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that while penalty order had been passed on 29.08.2024, the assessee had instituted appeal in quantum proceedings to the Ld. CIT(A) only subsequently on 13.03.2025 with a delay which was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). He drew our attention to the fact in this regard noted in page 1para 1 of the Ld. CIT(A) order. He therefore, stated that while at the time of passing of the penalty order ,no appeal was instituted by the assessee, however subsequently, the assessee had filed an appeal against order passed by the AO in quantum proceedings and the Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition made in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act. Hetherefore, stated that there was no casefor levy of any penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act on account of any addition made under Section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, since the addition as a matter of fact stood deleted. 6. The ld. DR, was unable to controvert the facts pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us. In view of the above since Learned counsel for the assessee has fairly demonstrated before us that the addition made in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money amounting to Rs. 81,82,058/- on which penalty under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act was levied on the assessee, stood deleted in first appeal, it is abundantly clear that

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1834 & 1835/JPR/2025 DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Samiti Lasadiya the penalty levied in the present case has no legs to stand upon .The penalty levied accordingly, under section 271AAC(1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,90,923/- is deleted. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. We shall now take up the assessee appeal in ITA No. 1835/JPR/2025.The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- “1. That confirming the penalty as levied u/sec. 272A(1)(d) for Rs. 20,000/- is bad in law for the reasons (a) Not condoning the delay caused. (b) Quantum appeal is still pending before CIT(A). 2. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 8. The assessee in the impugned appeal has challenged the levy of penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act of Rs. 20,000/- for non compliance of notices issued during assessment proceedings. 9. At the outset, itself Learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee had adduced sufficient caused before Ld. CIT(A) for the delay in filing of appeal before him and also for the same reason was unable to participate in the assessment proceedings also .That sincethe reasons were found by the Ld.CIT(A) to be sufficient for condoning the delay in filing of appeal before him, he therefore pleaded that there was no case for levy of any penalty in the hands of the assessee for non compliance with any notice issued during assessment proceedings. 10. We find merit in the contention of the Learned counsel for the assessee. Ld. CIT(A)’s order in quantum proceedings categorically records the fact of condonation of delay in filing of appeal before him. We have also noted the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings had held addition made

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1834 & 1835/JPR/2025 DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Samiti Lasadiya in the hands of the assessee to be not sustainable and had directed the deletion of the same. Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the entire addition of Rs. 81,82,058/- made in the hands of the assessee. Noting the above facts, we hold that it would be grossly unfair to levy of any penalty on the assessee for non compliance of notices issued during assessment proceedings particularly when the Ld.CIT(A) has found reasonable cause with assessee while condoning the delay in filing appeal before him and for which reason the assessee was unable to participate in assessment proceedings also and also for the reason that the assessment framed by the AO was found by the Ld.CIT(A) to be of no consequence , having deleted the entire addition made in the hands of the assessee.. Accordingly, We direct the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271A(1)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs. 20,000/-. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly, allowed. 11. In effect, both the appeals of the assessee before us are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (UDAYAN DASGUPTA ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Jaipur Dated 02.07.2026 *Santosh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent

P a g e | 6 ITA No.1834 & 1835/JPR/2025 DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Samiti Lasadiya 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order,

Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur