RASHMI ARUN CHOUGULE,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.1892/PUN/2025
निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15
Rashmi Arun Chogule,
1557, D Ward, Dhanawade
Galli, Shukrawarpeth,
Kolhapur – 416002. Maharashtra.
V s
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-2(1), Kolhapur.
PAN: AEHPC4149R
Appellant/ Assessee
Respondent / Revenue
Assessee by None
Revenue by Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.CIT(DR)
Date of hearing
30/10/2025
Date of pronouncement 30/10/2025
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2014-15 dated
20.06.2025 emanating from the Penalty Order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.09.2022. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
ITA No.1892/PUN/2025 [A]
2
“1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NATIONAL FACELESS
APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), Delhi, erred in appreciating fact that the quantum appeal against the assessment order has been restored to the file of the CIT (A) by the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench, vide appeal no.
ITA No.2202/PUN/2024 dated 10.12.2024 and hence, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is premature and liable to be deleted.
2 The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the alleged unexplained investment of ₹25,96,575/- was sourced from a loan of 231,50,000/- taken from Geojit Financial Services Ltd. and the same was invested in commodity trading with Geojit Comtrade Ltd.
Therefore, the addition made under section 69 was unjustified and, consequently, the penalty levied thereon is not sustainable.
3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of 26,83,679/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the said penalty is unjustified, arbitrary, and bad in law.
4 The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting an effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
5 The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
Findings & Analysis :
We have heard ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue and perused the records. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the ITA No.1892/PUN/2025 [A]
3
appeal of the Assessee, as Assessee had not filed any reply to notices.
1 In this case, the Assessee’s Appeal against assessment order in ITA No.2202/PUN/2024 had been set-aside to ld.CIT(A) by ITAT vide order dated 16.12.2024. Thus, when ld.CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the Assessee against Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, on 20.06.2025, the ITAT had already set-aside Quantum Addition for denovo adjudication.
In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the Assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30 Oct, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE
Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 30 Oct, 2025/ SGR
ITA No.1892/PUN/2025 [A]
4
आदेशकीप्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant.
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A), concerned.
4. The Pr. CIT, concerned.
5. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, “एस एम सऩ” बेंच,
पपणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune.
6. गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File.
आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER,
////
Senior Private Secretary
आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune.
ITA No.1892/PUN/2025 [A]
S.
No Details
Date
Initi als
Designati on 1
Draft dictated on 30.10.2025
Sr. PS/PS
2
Final Draft placed before author
30.10.2025
Sr. PS/PS
3
Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member
.10.2025
JM/AM
4
Draft discussed/approved by Second Member
AM/AM
5
Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS
Sr. PS/PS
6
Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS
7
Date of uploading of Order
Sr. PS/PS
8
File sent to Bench Clerk
Sr. PS/PS
9
Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk
10
Date on which file goes to the A.R.
11
Date of Dispatch of order