KUDOS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition leading to the penalty had already been deleted, the penalty itself had no basis to stand. Therefore, the penalty was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against the order confirming a penalty levied under section 270A. The penalty was imposed due to a disallowance made for delay in depositing employee's PF and ESI contributions. This disallowance had previously been deleted by the Tribunal in an earlier appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under section 270A can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH,
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is arising out of assessment order framed u/s 270A dated 15.03.2022 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The only grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,38,688/- levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 270A of the Act.
3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the impugned penalty deserves to be deleted as the quantum addition already stands deleted by this Tribunal vide dated 28.06.2022.
On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) failed to controvert the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. In the assessment of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 framed on 10.12.2019 disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act at Rs. 3,86,228/- made for delay in depositing Employees contribution towards PF and ESI. On the said addition penalty u/s 270A has been levied at Rs. 2,38,688/- Against the quantum addition the assessee succeeded in the appeal before this Tribunal vide order dated 28.06.2022 in and the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) at Rs. 3,86,228/- has been deleted. Under the given scale whether the quantum stands deleted, the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act has no legs to stand and the same is hereby deleted. Finding of Ld. CIT(A) is reversed. Penalty levied u/s 270A is deleted and effective grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are allowed.
6. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 12th day of August, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; ददिांक / Dated: 12th August, 2025. Neeta
आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, "A" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, "A" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File.
आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
S.No. Details Date Remarks 1. Draft dictated on 08.08.2025 P.S.
Draft placed before author 11.08.2025 A.M.
Draft proposed & placed 11.08.2025 J.M. before the Second Member 4. Draft discussed/approved by 11.08.2025 J.M. Second Member 5. Approved Draft comes to the 12.08.2025 P.S. Sr. PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 12.08.2025 P.S.
Date of uploading of Order .08.2025 P.S.
File sent to Bench Clerk .08.2025 P.S.
Date on which the file goes to .08.2025 the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the .08.2025 A.R.
Date of Despatch of order .08.2025
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 →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026