RAMDAS PANDHARINATH KALE(HUF),PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-12(3), PUNE, PUNE

The learned AO has erred in invoking both the limbs/charge of penalty while recording satisfaction in respect of one limb/charge Thus, to that extent, the penalty order passed by the AO suffers from infirmity and is bad in law and the id. CIT A erred in confirming the same

For want of specific limb/charge of penalty being considered, the penalty proceedings are void and cannot be acted upon. So the same needs to be set aside or cancelled

The learned CIT Appeals erred in dismissing assessee's appeal by rejecting delay condonation request without affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The appellate proceedings, thus, suffer from principles of natural justice and needs to be set aside.

The assessee prays before your honour to afford and allow him an opportunity of being heard in interest of natural justice and on merits of the case as well, before the lower authorities or else to decide the matter if the honourable bench permits.

The assessee hereby requests for allowing any other relief as available under the law.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a HUF deriving income from business, capital gains and income from other sources, furnished return of income on 31.07.2014 declaring total income at Rs.1,74,682/-. The Return was processed under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny, &notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. After considering the submission of the assessee, assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by determining total income at Rs.27,70,204/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.1,74,682/-. The above assessed income includes withdrawal of deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act of Rs.25 lakhs income from other sources of Rs.55,522/- and disallowance of expenses of Rs.40,000/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. In reply to the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the assessee furnished written submission. Since the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with reply of the assessee he consequently imposed penalty of Rs.2,94,119/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

After considering the submission of the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by not condoning the delay of 48 days. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal.

The ld.AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) is unjustified. LD AR submitted before the bench that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the time limit prescribed under statute. In this regard, he further submitted before the Bench that the procedure for preparing the memo of appeal was started well within the limits of 30 days after receipt of the penalty order. Even the challan of appeal fees was deposited within 30 days time limit, but the memo of appeal i.e.Form No.35 could not be uploaded on the Income Tax Portal, since at that particular time the Income Tax Portal was facing some technical glitches. Theld.AR also submitted that even the OTP was not coming on the Aadhar linked mobile at that particular point of time and as soon as the portal started functioning smoothly, the appeal was immediately uploaded, but in the mean time the delay of 48 days occurred. An affidavit in support of all these contentions was also produced before

On the other hand, ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue relied on the order passed by Sub-ordinate Authorities and requested to confirm the same.

We have heard Ld.Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay of 48 days & without going into merits of the case. In this regard, we find that the assessee has furnished an affidavit wherein he has described all the ITA No.246/PUN/2025 [A]

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th March, 2025. (R.K.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 28th Mar, 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, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune.

गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File.