BAKSHISH SINGH,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. OTO, WARD-2(3)(5), HALDWANI

This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AY 2019-20. While ITA 210 pertains to a penalty levied u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), ITA 211 pertains to a penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act. In both these cases the Ld. AO’s order is seen to be ex parte in nature, even though before the Ld. CIT(A) written submissions have been submitted to a certain extent. It is seen that both the impugned orders are almost identically worded and refer to the fact that the assessee has not specifically addressed the subject of the 1

Aggrieved with these orders the assessee has approached the ITAT whereby in both the appeals through single grounds of appeal, it has been averred that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided adequate opportunity of being heard.

Before us the Ld. AR mentioned that the quantum matter was also under consideration but it would be appropriate if these matters could be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO so that the assessee has an opportunity of making a presentation of facts before him.

We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. It is seen that in both the cases the assessee did not respond to notices issued by the Ld. AO. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has also more or less disregarded the submissions made before him and has relied heavily on the findings given in the quantum adjudication order dated 05.02.2026, which have not been specifically discussed vis-à-vis the impugned penalties. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside both the impugned orders and remand these matters back to the

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.