JHARKHAND BHAWAN EVAM ANAY SANIRMAN KARMKAR KALYAN BOARD,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 1(1), RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 324/RAN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 August 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessee were previously partly allowed and restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. Consequently, holding that the penalties could not stand without a final quantum assessment, the Tribunal deleted all penalties imposed under Section 272A(1)(d), Section 271F, and Section 271(1)(b).

What were the facts?

The assessee faced penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act for different assessment years. For A.Y. 2018-19, a penalty of ₹20,000 was imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a Section 142(1) notice, following an assessment for significant cash deposits and interest income. For other assessment years, penalties were imposed under Section 271F and Section 271(1)(b).

What were the issues?

Whether penalties imposed under various sections (272A(1)(d), 271F, 271(1)(b)) are sustainable when the related quantum assessment has been restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 148,Section 194A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 271F,Section 271(1)(b)

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Choudhary, A.R. with Shri M.K. Choudhary, A.R. with Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R, Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR, Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18/08/2025Pronounced: 18/08/2025

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 for the A.Y. 2018 Firstly we will take 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 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 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 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 and 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 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 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 Assessing Officer. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that this Bench of Hon'ble ITAT has already decided the quantum appeal in 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.

More judgments on Section 272A(1)(d)

All 1,125 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →