MR. MANOJ N. PERE,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
Given that the basis for initiating penalties (the quantum assessment) was already set aside for fresh adjudication, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to also remit the penalty issues to the learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. Consequently, the impugned penalty orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against NFAC orders confirming penalties under Sections 271F, 271AA, and 272A for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal had previously, in a separate order, restored the underlying quantum assessment (framed under Sections 147 read with 144) for the same AY to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty orders should be sustained when the foundational quantum assessment, which led to the penalties, has been set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 271F,Section 271AA,Section 272A,Section 147,Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned three appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 are against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) confirming the penalties levied u/s.271F, 271AA and 272A of the Act.
At the outset, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the quantum issue for A.Y. 2017-18 relating to additions made in the assessment orders dated 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act dated 17.03.2022 passed in the case of assessee has already been restored back by this Tribunal to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication, therefore, the issues relating to the impugned penalties also deserve to be restored to the file of ld. JAO for necessary re- adjudication. Copy of order by this Tribunal in dated 13.08.2025 is placed on record.
On the other hand, ld. DR was fair enough in not opposing the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the assessee is an individual and various additions made in the hands of the assessee in the assessment order for A.Y. 2017-18 framed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act on 17.03.2022. Assessee failed to succeed before ld.CIT(A) and thereafter approached before this Tribunal and vide order dated 13.08.2025 in this Tribunal restored the issues raised on merit to the file of ld. JAO for carrying out denovo proceedings.
Under these given facts and circumstances, where the assessment proceedings in which ld. AO recorded the satisfaction for initiating impugned penalties for the A.Y. 2017-18 stands restored to the file of ld. JAO for afresh adjudication, we deem it appropriate to remit the issues raised in the instant appeals as well to the file of ld. JAO for denovo adjudication. Impugned orders are set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Needless to mention that ld.JAO in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.
In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 24th day of September, 2025.
More judgments on Section 271F
- Anuragraiji Vallabhraiji Goswai, Surat vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), SuratITA 643/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2008-09
- Krunal Bharat Bha vs Ar, Ahmedabadvs.the Income Tax Officer…ITA 332/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Faiz Ala Faizi, Bangalore vs I.T.O., Ward - 54(2), KolkataITA 1374/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Imran Khan, Chandigarh vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals…ITA 689/CHANDI/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Imran Khan, Manimajra vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals…ITA 688/CHANDI/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026