RAMKRUSHNA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 10(1), PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1411/PUN/2024
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18

Ramkrushna
Gramin
Bigarsheti
Sahakari
Patsanstha Maryadit,
Nirgudsar Ambegav,
Pune- 412406. PAN : AANFR7185C
Vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Pune.
Appellant

Respondent

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.04.2024 passed u/s 270A of the IT Act by Ld.
CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri Shashank Ojha

Date of hearing
: 20.08.2025
Date of pronouncement : 08.10.2025
2
adjournment was filed despite due service of notice of hearing, therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal based on written submission filed by the assessee as well as after hearing Ld. DR.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a credit cooperative society and ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 of the IT Act was passed in his case. Subsequently, penalty of Rs.3,23,719/- u/s 270A of the IT Act was imposed on the basis of additions made in the quantum assessment order. Being aggrieved with the quantum assessment order as well as penalty order u/s 270A of the IT Act, the assessee preferred appeals before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
During the pendency of appeal against the quantum assessment order, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 30.04.2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order and confirmed the penalty of Rs.3,23,719/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the IT Act.
4. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
5. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record including written submission filed by the assessee. In this 3
regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has confirmed the penalty of Rs.3,23,719/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the IT Act, however, we also find that the appeal against quantum addition is still pending for adjudication by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Considering the above fact that the appeal against the quantum addition is still pending for disposal on the basis of which impugned penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act was imposed, therefore, in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh involving the issue of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act upon disposal of appeal against the quantum addition for the same assessment year filed by the assessee. Needless to mention here that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall decide the appeal against the impugned penalty order after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and to produce relevant documents/case laws in support of grounds of appeal.
4
Thus, the 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 on this 08th day of October, 2025. (MANISH BORAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 08th October, 2025. Sujeet
आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant.
2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent.
3. The Pr.CIT concerned.
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच,
पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune.

////
Senior Private Secretary

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.