JHARKHAND BHAWAN EVAM ANAY SANIRMAN KARMKAR KALYAN BOARD,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 1(1), RANCHI
Facts
The assessee filed multiple appeals against orders of the CIT(A) upholding penalties imposed by the AO for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2018-19. Penalties were initiated under sections like 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices, 271F for certain defaults, and 271(1)(b) for other specified reasons, following assessments where large cash deposits and interest income were noted.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the quantum appeals for the same assessee and assessment years had already been partly allowed and the matters restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. Given that the underlying quantum issues are to be re-examined, the Tribunal decided to delete all the penalties imposed under Sections 272A(1)(d), 271F, and 271(1)(b) for all relevant assessment years.
Key Issues
Whether penalties imposed under various sections of the Income Tax Act are sustainable when the corresponding quantum appeal has been remanded back to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 272A(1)(d), Section 148, Section 147, Section 144, Section 144B, Section 194A, Section 142(1), Section 271F, Section 271(1)(b), Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 321 to 325/Ran/2024 (Assessment Year (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2018 16 and 2018-19) Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman I.T.O., Karmkar Kalyan Board, Ranchi, Karmkar Kalyan Board, Ranchi, Ward-1(1), 1(1), Vs. Joint Labour Building, Behind Ashoka Joint Labour Building, Behind Ashoka Ranchi. Hotel, Doranda, Ranchi Hotel, Doranda, Ranchi-834002 PAN No. AABAJ 4159 K AABAJ 4159 K Appellant/ Assessee Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Respondent/ Revenue
Assessee represented by Assessee represented by Shri M.K. Choudhary, A.R. with Shri M.K. Choudhary, A.R. with Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18/08/2025 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement 18/08/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee(s) against the separate orders of These are the appeals filed by the assessee(s) against the separate orders of These are the appeals filed by the assessee(s) against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi NFAC, Delhi dated 25/07/2024, 14/06/2024 and 10/06/2024 dated 25/07/2024, 14/06/2024 and 10/06/2024 for the A.Y. 2013-14, 2015 14, 2015-16 and 2018-19. In all these appeals, the assessee 19. In all these appeals, the assessee has raised common grounds of appeal except variation in amount of penalty raised common grounds of appeal except variation in amount of penalty raised common grounds of appeal except variation in amount of penalty and the relevant relevant Sections under which penalties have ies have been imposed. Therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals have been clubbed Therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals have been clubbed Therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and are being decided b and heard together and are being decided by this common order. y this common order. 2. Firstly we will take ITA No. 321/Ran/2024 for the A.Y. 2018 Firstly we will take ITA No. 321/Ran/2024 for the A.Y. 2018 Firstly we will take ITA No. 321/Ran/2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19. In this appeal, though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeals but the main the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeals but the main the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeals but the main grievance of the assessee is that the penalty was imposed by the Assessing grievance of the assessee is that the penalty was imposed by the Assessing grievance of the assessee is that the penalty was imposed by the Assessing
P a g e 1 | 4
ITA No.321 to 325/Ran/2024 Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar kalian Board vs ITO
Officer under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short, the Act) amounting to ₹ 20,000/- and the same was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3. The facts of the case, in brief are that notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31/03/2022 for the A.Y. 2018-19 was issued for the reason that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to ₹ 62,12,17,000/- in his bank account maintained in the State Bank of India and also earned interest other than interest on securities (Section 194A) of ₹ 7,33,06,329/-. Assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with section 144 again read with section 144B of the Act on 17/03/2023. The income was assessed at ₹ 69,45,23,329/-. Penalty proceedings under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act was also initiated by the Assessing Officer on 01/02/2023 for non-compliance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 20/10/2022 and 15/12/2022. The Assessing Officer, therefore, imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 13/08/2023. 4. Aggrieved by the order of penalty passed as above, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal. 6. During the appellate proceedings before us, the ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the facts that this Bench of Hon'ble ITAT has already decided the quantum appeal vide ITA No. 99 to 101/Ran/2025 order dated 13/06/2025 in the case of the same assessee and the appeal was partly
P a g e 2 | 4
ITA No.321 to 325/Ran/2024 Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar kalian Board vs ITO
allowed and matter was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issues involved in the quantum appeals. Since the matter is already restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act is deleted. 7. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No. 322/Ran/2024 and ITA No. 324/Ran/2024 for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively. 9. In both these appeals, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty under Section 271F of the Act amounting to Rs.₹ 5,000/- each and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that this Bench of Hon'ble ITAT has already decided the quantum appeal in ITA No. 99 to 101/Ran/2025 vide order dated 13/06/2025 in the case of the same assessee and the appeal was partly allowed and matter was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issues involved in the quantum appeals. Since the matter is already restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271F of the Act in both these appeals are deleted. 10. In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed. 11. Now we take ITA No. 323/Ran/2024 and ITA No. 325/Ran/2024 for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively. 12. In both these appeals, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.₹ 20,000/- and ₹ 40,000/- respectively and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty imposed by the P a g e 3 | 4
ITA No.321 to 325/Ran/2024 Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar kalian Board vs ITO
Assessing Officer. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that this Bench of Hon'ble ITAT has already decided the quantum appeal in ITA No. 99 to 101/Ran/2025 vide order dated 13/06/2025 in the case of the same assessee and the appeal was partly allowed and matter was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issues involved in the quantum appeals. Since the matter is already restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act in both these appeals are deleted. 13. In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order announced in open court on 18th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 18/08/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi
P a g e 4 | 4
