SHIVJEET GHATGE (LEGAL HEIR OF MR VIJAYSINH GHATGE),KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 462/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 April 2026AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the penalty is dependent on the quantum addition. Since the quantum appeal was restored to the CIT(A), the penalty appeal was also remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on an addition for short-term capital gains. The quantum appeal related to this addition had been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty appeal should be adjudicated independently or be dependent on the outcome of the restored quantum appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIALMEMBER

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Chokhani- AR
Hearing: 09.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B”BENCH PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIALMEMBER ITA. Nos.462/PUN/2026 A.Y. : 2011-12 Shivjeet Ghatge( Legal Heir of Vs I.T.O., Wd.2(1), Mr Vijaysinh Ghatge), Aaykar Bhavan,31- Yeshwant Bhavan, Nagala C/2E Ward, Tarabai Park Near Sanjay Ghodawat Park, University, Kolhapur-416003, Kolhapur-416003, Maharashtra. PAN.No.ABGPG8930J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Assessee by Ms. Nidhi Chokhani- AR Revenue by Shri.Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT- DR

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing 09.04.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of 22.04.2026 Pronouncement

ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld.CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act dt. 27.11.2025 which is arising from the order dt. 17.03.2025 passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by Assessment unit, Income Tax Department.

:2 ITA. Nos.462/PUN/2026 Shivjeet Ghatge( Legal Heir of Mr Vijaysinh Ghatge), A.Y. : 2011-12

2.

The sole grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.85,73,211/-.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal has already been restored to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by this Tribunal vide order in ITA No.1128/PN/2025 dt. 28.08.2025 and therefore prayed for restoring the penalty appeal also to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). On the other hand, the Ld.DR’s representative supported the order the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee has challenged the finding of the CIT(A) upholding the penalty at Rs.85,73,211/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on alleged addition for short term capital gain of Rs.2,77,45,023/-.

5.

We observe that against the quantum addition the assessee has preferred the appeal before this Tribunal and vide order ITA No.1128/PN/2025 dt. 28.08.2025, this Tribunal has condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and has set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Admittedly penalty is dependent on the quantum addition and the issue thereof has been already restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and also the assessee has failed to participate in the

:3 ITA. Nos.462/PUN/2026 Shivjeet Ghatge( Legal Heir of Mr Vijaysinh Ghatge), A.Y. : 2011-12

appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) against the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. We therefore remit back the issue of penalty raised in the instant appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard and also direct the assessee to make proper compliance to the notice of hearing issued by Ld.CIT(A) except for reasonable cause. Thus, impugned finding is set aside. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (MANISH BORAD ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Pune Dated: 22/04/2026 Ashwini

Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.04.27 17:44:12 +05'30'

:4 ITA. Nos.462/PUN/2026 Shivjeet Ghatge( Legal Heir of Mr Vijaysinh Ghatge), A.Y. : 2011-12

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant, 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, “B” Bench 6. Guard file.

//True Copy// BY ORDER,

(Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →