DATTATRAY SUKARYA SAVALE,PALGHAR vs. ITO WARD-1, PALGHAR, PALGHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 688/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 March 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER | ITA No. | A.Y. | Appellant | Respondent | |--------------|----------|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 688/Mum/2025 | 2015-16 | Dattatray SukaryaSavale, Naik Ali, Kophrad, Opp: Zilla Parishad School, Agashi | ITO, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, BIDCO Road, Palghar, Maharashtra-401404 | | 767/Mum/2025 | 2016-17 | | | | 7664 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for these years were previously restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Considering the ex-parte nature of the penalty orders, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored them to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed three appeals against the penalty orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) which confirmed penalties levied u/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act for AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18. The assessee contended that the quantum assessment and penalty orders were passed ex-parte without hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty orders passed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) should be restored to the file for fresh adjudication when similar quantum orders were already restored.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M :

All the three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order(s) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and they relate to AYs. 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. In all these appeals, the assessee is contesting the decision of theLd.CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟).

2.

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had challenged the quantum assessment proceedings also before the Ld.CIT(A) and the same was disposed of by him ex-parte, without hearing the assessee. Hence, the assessee challenged the orders so passed by the Ld.CIT(A) by filing the appeals before the Tribunal for all the three years and they were numbered as 304 to 306/Mum/2025. All the three appeals have already been disposed of by the Tribunal, vide its order dt. 05-03-2025; wherein all the issues have been restored to the file(s) of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating the grounds urged by the assessee on merits.The Ld.AR submitted that the impugned penalty orders have been passed by the Ld.CIT(A) ex-parte and hence, these appeals may also be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

We heard the Ld.DR and perused the record.Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee, we set aside the orders passed by theLd.CIT(A) in all the three years and restore them to his file for adjudicating them afresh.

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →