KETAN PRIYAVADAN SHAH ,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(3) , AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1598/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 October 2025AY 2020-21Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was already set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits. Therefore, this appeal involving penalty under section 270A was also set aside to the file of the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an appellate order related to the Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee raised grounds challenging the penalty imposed under section 270A and the satisfaction of the AO. A similar quantum appeal for the same assessment year was previously restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under section 270A is valid, considering the pending adjudication of the quantum appeal and the AO's satisfaction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.10.2025Pronounced: 07.10.2025

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

1.

1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) relevant to the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed.

Ketan P Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2– 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty of Rs.13,86,849/- u/s.270A of the Act. 3. Ld. NFAC ought to have consider fact that AO failed to record satisfaction and accordingly penalty order is required to be quashed. 4. Ld. NFAC ought to have consider fact that issue on which penalty has been imposed are debatable issued and accordingly, no penalty is leviable.

3.

At the outset, we noticed that quantum appeal bearing for A.Y 2020-21 dated 14.08.2025 has been restored to file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication denovo. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as below:

“…6.5 Considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the delay deserves to be condoned, and the matter restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 114 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)is set aside, and the matter is restored to his file with a direction to decide the appeal on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.…”

4.

Since the quantum appeal has already been set-aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits, this appeal involving penalty u/s.270A of the Act, is also set aside to the file of Ld.CIT(A).

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 07.10.2025

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →