MOHAN KRISHNA JADHAV,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOLHAPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1495/PUN/2024
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2019-20
Mohan Krishna Jadhav,
Hotel Vaishali,
A/P-Kameri,
Tal-Walwa, Sangli – 415403. V s
The Income Tax Office.
PAN: ADBPJ1592J
Appellant/ Assessee
Respondent / Revenue
Assessee by Shri Pramod S Shingte - AR
Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - DR
Date of hearing
20/03/2025
Date of pronouncement 16/04/2025
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2019-20, dated 19.06.2024 emanating from the penalty order u/s.270A of the Act, dated 11.09.2022 for A.Y.2019-20. “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A)-11, Pune erred in confirming the levy of penalty by the AO u/s 270A in respect of income declared by the appellant in survey which ITA No.2048/PUN/2024 [A]
2
was offered to tax in his return of income filed u/s 139(1) not accepting the submission of the appellant that:
a. There being no difference in the returned income and assessed income, levy of penalty for under reporting of income inconsequence of misreporting is incorrect.
b. No penal proceedings having been issued at the time of assessment, initiation and levy of such penalty subsequent to the CIT(A)'s order is incorrect.
The appellant prays that, the AO be directed delete the penalty.
The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ground of appeal or raise a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
Submission of ld.AR:
Ld.AR submitted that the penalty order is bad in law as penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act was never initiated during assessment proceedings. Ld.AR submitted that the penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act was not initiated while giving effect to the order of ld.CIT(A) on 20.01.2023. Ld.AR took us through the order giving effect to the order of ld.CIT(A)-11, Pune dated 20.01.2023 for A.Y.2019-20. ITA No.2048/PUN/2024 [A]
3
Submission of ld.DR :
Ld.DR relied on the order of ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis :
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. This appeal is against the ld.CIT(A)’s order dated 19.06.2024 confirming the penalty u/s.270A of the Act for A.Y.2019-20. We have perused the assessment order for A.Y.2019-20 dated 30.09.2021 and it is observed that there is no mention of initiation of penalty u/s.270A of the Act. We have also perused the order giving effect to the order of ld.CIT(A)-11, Pune dated 20.01.2023 for A.Y.2019-20, passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Central Circle), Kolhapur. Nowhere in these orders, the assessing officer has initiated penalty u/s.270A of the Act. However, ld.CIT(A) in para 10 of his order has stated that AO initiated penalty u/s.270A of the Act while giving effect to the order of ld.CIT(A). However, this finding of ld.CIT(A) is factually incorrect. We have already stated that no penalty has been initiated by Assessing Officer. We have scanned and reproduced the order giving effect as under :
ITA No.2048/PUN/2024 [A]
1 Thus, it can be seen from the scanned copy that there is no mention of initiation of penalty u/s.270A of the Act. However, there is a small error in the said order i.e.in one place it was mentioned as “A.Y.2010-11”, however at all other placed the assessment year mentioned is “A.Y.2019-20”. We have also cross checked the total
ITA No.2048/PUN/2024 [A]
5
income and the additions, with the assessment order and the figures mentioned in the assessment order for A.Y.2019-20 matches with the order giving effect to the order of CIT(A)-11, Pune dated
20.01.2023. Therefore, the order before us is for A.Y.2019-20. Ld.DR has also not taken any objection.
2 Thus, it is a clear fact that Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceedings either during assessment proceedings or while giving effect to the order of CIT(A). The Section 270A is reproduced as under : “270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under- reported his income shall be liable to pay a penalty in addition to tax, if any, on the under-reported income.”
It is mandatory as per Section 270A, to initiate penalty during the pendency of proceedings. We have already mentioned above that penalty proceedings were not initiated either during assessment proceedings or during order giving effect to ld.CIT(A). In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that penalty order u/s.270A for A.Y.2019-20 is void ab initio, hence,
ITA No.2048/PUN/2024 [A]
6
the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th April, 2025. (ASTHA CHANDRA) (DIPAK P.RIPOTE)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 16th April, 2025/ SGR
आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant.
2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A), concerned.
4. The Pr. CIT, concerned.
5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR,
ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune.
गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
////
Senior Private Secretary
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.