Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed four appeals against penalty orders under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalties arose from assessment orders following a search and seizure operation. The assessee's application for immunity under Section 270AA was rejected by the Assessing Officer, who then imposed a penalty. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty imposed under Section 270A was justified when the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A)?
Sections Cited
270A, 132, 153A, 143(3), 270AA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
order : October 21, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: These four captioned appeals—ITA No. 649/Patna/2024 for A.Y. 2017–18, for A.Y. 2018–19, for A.Y. 2019–20, and ITA No. 650/Patna/2024 for A.Y. 2020–21—are filed by the same assessee against the orders of the learned CIT(A), relating to penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of the respective assessment orders. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common except for variation in figures and assessment years, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of four days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition , 645, 646 & 650/Pat/2024 Pankaj Kumar for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable and sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.
First we take up as a lead A.Y. 2017–18 and finding of this will apply to other connected appeal mutatis mutandis. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the Nand Kishore Prasad Shah Group. During the course of search, certain incriminating papers and documents were found and seized. Consequently, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. In response, the assessee filed a return of income declaring total income of ₹5,87,550. However, in the original return filed earlier, the assessee had declared an income of ₹4,17,550. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act determining total income at ₹5,87,550, thereby accepting the additional income offered by the assessee during the course of search proceedings. Since the assessee had declared additional income in response to the notice under Section 153A, the Assessing Officer considered it a case of under-reported income and accordingly initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act. The assessee, in response to the show-cause notice, filed a reply and also requested for immunity under Section 270AA from imposition of penalty. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the application and imposed a penalty of ₹15,838 under Section 270A of the Act.
, 645, 646 & 650/Pat/2024 Pankaj Kumar
The CIT(A), by order dated 11.09.2024, dismissed the appeal ex parte, upholding the action of the Assessing Officer.
The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the order of the CIT(A) was passed ex parte without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also contended that the assessee had duly filed an application before the Assessing Officer seeking immunity under Section 270AA, which was not properly considered. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the CIT(A).
The learned D.R., on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that since the assessee’s application for immunity was not validly filed, the Assessing Officer rightly imposed penalty. 7. After hearing both parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that the CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte, and the assessee did not get an effective opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and ensure compliance with notices issued by the CIT(A) during the remand proceedings. In view of the above, the appeal in is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Since the issues involved in 646 & 650/Patna/2024 are identical in facts and circumstances, our findings and directions in , 645, 646 & 650/Pat/2024 Pankaj Kumar shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals as well. 9. In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 21st October, 2025.