Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC
Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 545/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10
Pushapdeep Singh Sandhu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 2706, Phase 7, Mohali. Ward 6(4), Mohali. [Now at 1015, Nr. Narinder [Now, ITO Ward (3)(3), Faridkot] Palace, Distt. KKP, FDK.] [PAN: CAOPS 5959L] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Sh. J. K. Gupta (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 27.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 29.03.2019
ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 02.06.2017, confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) by the Assessing Officer (AO) for assessment year (AY) 2009-10 vide order dated 25.06.2012.
At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Gupta, adducing a copy of the order by the Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) in the assessee’s case in quantum proceedings for the relevant year (in ITA No. 659/Chd/2017, dated 13.7.2017/copy on record), that the assessment having been set aside by the Tribunal to the file of the first appellate authority, the penalty
2 ITA No. 545/Asr/2017 (AY 2009-10) Pushapdeep Singh Sandhu v. ITO proceedings would also likewise be required to be set aside. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objection to the said plea. Further, on being inquired as how is it that while the jurisdiction in the quantum proceedings lay with the Chandigarh Bench of the tribunal, the appeal in the penalty proceedings is presented before its’ Amritsar Bench, it was explained by Sh. Gupta that this was on account of the change in address since, also adverting to the order u/s. 127 dated 19.05.2017 transferring the assessee’s jurisdiction from ITO Ward 6(2), Mohali to ITO Ward (3)(3), Faridkot. No issue as to jurisdiction, thus, he urged, arises.
I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The tribunal has set aside the quantum proceedings back to the file of the first appellate authority. The appeal in the instant case is qua penalty on both the additions under appeal in the quantum proceedings. Per contra, the penalty proceedings would necessarily have to be restored back. The same are, accordingly, set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A), to decide the same in light of and by taking into consideration the explanations furnished; the material/s brought on record, as well as the finding/s issued by the first appellate authority in the quantum proceedings, of course after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties before him. I decide accordingly.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on March 29, 2019 Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) Accountant Member Date: 29.03.2019 /GP/Sr. Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to:
3 ITA No. 545/Asr/2017 (AY 2009-10) Pushapdeep Singh Sandhu v. ITO (1) The Appellant: Pushapdeep Singh Sandhu, 1015, Nr. Narinder Palace, Distt. KKP, Faridkot. (2) The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward (3)(3), Faridkot (3) The CIT(Appeals)-2, Chandigarh (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T