SHIVAM NIRANJANLAL PODDAR,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOME TAX WARD ,2, GANDHIDHAM
Facts
The assessee's appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2020-21 and arises from a penalty order under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The penalty was initiated by the Assessing Officer after making an addition of Rs. 62,58,034/- in the quantum assessment.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment addition in the assessee's own case had already been restored back to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 270A would not survive.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under Section 270A can survive when the underlying quantum assessment addition has been set aside or restored to the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
270A, 250, 143(3), 144B, 57
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21 is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 27.01.2024, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s 270A of the Act, on 23.01.2023.
At the outset itself, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed short synopsis narrating the fact that addition in the quantum assessment has already Page | 1
ITA No. 310/Rjt/2024 A.Y 20-21 Shivan N. Poddar
been restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, in ITA No.294/RJT/2024 dated 29.11.2024 in assessee`s own case. Therefore, this matter may be also restored back to the file of Assessing Officer also, as the penalty imposed by the assessing officer is linked with the quantum proceedings. This fact was confronted to learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue, and after going through the above referred decision of the Tribunal, and ld DR confirmed the aforesaid facts.
I have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of record, I find that Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 24.08.2022. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition u/s 57 of the Act amounting to Rs.62,58,034/-. The Assessing officer while passing assessment order initiated penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied penalty vide order dated 23.01.2023 @ 50% of tax sought to be evaded and worked out the penalty tax of Rs.36,30,564/-.
Aggrieved by the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer, hence, this appeal filed by the assessee, before the Tribunal.
Considering the fact that addition made in the quantum assessment has already been restored back to the file of Assessing Officer in ITA No.294/RJT/2024, dated 29.11.2024, therefore, the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act, would not survive. Thus, this appeal is allowed without going in any other issue. However, the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to initiate fresh
ITA No. 310/Rjt/2024 A.Y 20-21 Shivan N. Poddar
penalty proceedings in accordance with law at the time of passing assessment order in restoration proceedings.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/05/2025.
Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot �दनांक/ Date: 16 /05/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant ��यथ�/ The Respondent आयकर आयु�/ CIT आयकर आयु�(अपील)/ The CIT(A) िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT गाड�फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेश से, // True Copy // सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजकोट
