SREEMA ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJARHAT, NEW TOWN vs. ITO, WARD 8(2), , KOLKATA

PDF

ITA 1061/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 July 2025AY 2020-2021Bench: the ITAT are on this very same issue. It has been further pointed out that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had raised the issue that the penalty proceedings were already dropped by JAO and hence there could have been no parallel action by a different AO. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not specifically adjudicate on this issue and proceeded ahead to confirm the impugned penalty.3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee was subjected to a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. While the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had dropped these penalty proceedings, a faceless Assessing Officer (AO) subsequently imposed the same penalty, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that there was a duality of proceedings and the penalty should not have been imposed by another AO.

Held

The Tribunal observed that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) had already been dropped by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). It ruled that once a conscious decision to drop proceedings is made by one AO, no other AO should levy the same penalty based on identical facts. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned penalty.

Key Issues

Whether a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) can be levied by a faceless Assessing Officer when the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has already dropped the same penalty proceedings, thereby creating a duality of proceedings.

Sections Cited

250, 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH”, KOLKATA

For Respondent: DR S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Sreema Associates Private Limited, DF-94, Shop No.2, Ground Floor, Premises No. 58- 324, Street No. 324, Rajarhat New Town, S.O, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal - 700156 [PAN: AASCS1199K] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. ITO Ward 8(2), Kolkata, NFAC, 4th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi - 110001 ................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Girdhar Dhelia, Advocate Department represented by : Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 24.07.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

The present appeal emanates from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)], vide order dated 24.04.2025.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AR pointed out that there was a duality of proceedings for the said penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The Ld. AR pointed out that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had dropped the penalty proceedings vide his order dated 29.08.2022 and the same has been placed for our perusal in the paper book. The Ld. AR has placed on Sreema Associates Pvt. Ltd. record documents pertaining to initiation of penalty and imposition of the same by the faceless AO, vide order dated 21.02.2023. The Ld. AR also pointed out that the Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of his appeal before the ITAT are on this very same issue. It has been further pointed out that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had raised the issue that the penalty proceedings were already dropped by JAO and hence there could have been no parallel action by a different AO. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not specifically adjudicate on this issue and proceeded ahead to confirm the impugned penalty.

1.2 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of Ld. CIT(A).

We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have also gone through the records. It is obvious that the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act had been dropped by ITO Ward 8(2), Kolkata vide his order dated 29.08.2022. Once a conscious decision was taken by one AO to drop the proceedings then there was no reason why another AO, working with the same set of facts, proceeded ahead to levy the impugned penalty. In light of these facts the assessee deserves the benefit of doubt in terms of applicability of provisions of section 272A(1)(d) of the Act and the impugned penalty deserves to be quashed.