SHRI ABHIJIT UTTAMRAO DESHMUKH,BEED vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, AURANGABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1596/PUN/2024
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Shri
Abhijit
Uttamrao
Deshmukh,
Vithal Niwas, Ganesh Par
Road, Parli Vaijanath Beed,
Beed- 431515. PAN : AGWPD1032B
Vs. ACIT,
Circle-3,
Aurangabad.
Appellant

Respondent

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee is an individual and an ex-parte assessment order was passed in his case wherein income of Rs.10 crores was determined by the Assessing
Assessee by : Shri Prateek Jha
Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar

Date of hearing
: 29.01.2025
Date of pronouncement : 31.01.2025
2
Officer. Subsequently, penalty of Rs.3,08,01,120/- was also imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by an ex-parte order. Ld.
CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal against the penalty order by observing that the quantum proceedings have already reached finality.
3. In this regard, it was contended by Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the quantum order on the basis of which penalty was imposed has already been set-aside by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide ITA No.1372/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2010-11 order dated 31.12.2024 wherein the appeal against the quantum addition has been restored back to the file of Ld.
CIT(A)/NFAC for deciding the appeal afresh on merits of the case.
Under the above facts of the case, it was requested by Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the penalty being consequential in nature, the order confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) passed by Ld.
CIT(A)/NFAC may also be set-aside and the matter may kindly be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the penalty appeal afresh after deciding the appeal in quantum case.
3
4. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue did not raise any serious objection to the request made by the assessee.
5. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that it is the contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the appeal against the quantum addition has not been finalized yet and still pending for disposal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Admittedly, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed before disposal of first appeal in quantum case. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the penalty appeal afresh as per fact & law after disposing of quantum appeal of the same assessment year. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce requisite documents/evidences/explanations in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld.
CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order as per
4
law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 31st day of January, 2025. (MANISH BORAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 31st January, 2025. Sujeet
आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant.
2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent.
3. The Pr. CIT concerned.
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच,
पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune.

////
Senior Private Secretary

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.