RAMKRUSHNA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 10(1), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the appeal against the quantum addition, which formed the basis of the penalty, was still pending adjudication. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh decision after the disposal of the quantum addition appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a credit cooperative society, faced an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 of the IT Act, followed by a penalty under Section 270A. The CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the penalty order, but the appeal against the quantum assessment order was still pending.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty order under Section 270A can be adjudicated when the appeal against the primary assessment order giving rise to the penalty is still pending.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ramkrushna Gramin Vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Pune. Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nirgudsar Ambegav, Pune- 412406. PAN : AANFR7185C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Shashank Ojha Date of hearing : 20.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.10.2025 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.
When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for 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.
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.
It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record including written submission filed by the assessee. In this 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.
More judgments on Section 270A
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, AnantapurITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026