SHIVAM NIRANJANLAL PODDAR,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOME TAX WARD ,2, GANDHIDHAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
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.
What were the 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.
What were the 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.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 270A,Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 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 A.Y 20-21 Shivan N. Poddar been restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, in 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 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 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.
More judgments on Section 270A
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, AnantapurITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Bamaniya vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary Ministry Of Home AffairsMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Patidar vs. Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Lokesh vs. Bank Of Maharashtra Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Arvind Lunawat vs. Axis Bank LimitedMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026