SURESH NAG YADAV,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, RANCHI, RANCHI

PDF

ITA 8/RAN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 August 2025AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member Ι.Τ.Α. Nos.08 to 12/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2016-17 Suresh Nag Yadav...........................................................................Appellant Yadav Bhawan, Karatoli, Jharkhand - 834008. [PAN: AAFPY5311D] VS. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi.......................................................Respondent Appearances by: Shri V. K. Jalan, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Khubc3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

A search and seizure operation under Section 132 led to a notice under Section 153A, and a penalty of Rs.30,900 under Section 271(1)(c) was levied for concealment of income. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, but the assessee contended that their submissions filed through the e-portal were not considered.

Held

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without appreciating or dealing with the assessee's contentions. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after duly considering all submissions and documentary evidence.

Key Issues

Failure of the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's submissions regarding the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Sections Cited

139(1), 132, 153A, 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH-RANCHI

Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

order : August 13, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: These five appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 28.11.2023 for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17 Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common except for variations in figures and assessment years, all the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First we proceed to deal with for A.Y. 2013-14, and our findings therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals.

Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 declaring a total income of Rs.37,56,390. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 29.11.2018 at the business and residential premises of the assessee. In consequence thereof, a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued. In response, the assessee filed its return of income on 21.05.2020 declaring total income of Rs.38,56,390/-, including additional income of Rs.1,00,000 disclosed to 12/Ran/2024 Suresh Nag Yadav during the search. The assessment was completed under section 153A of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.38,56,390. Penalty proceedings were initiated, and the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.30,900 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income.

The assessee challenged the imposition of penalty before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted that relevant contentions were filed through the departmental portal, but the ld. CIT(A) passed the order without appreciating or dealing with the submissions made by the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. At the time of the hearing the ld. AR reiterated that the order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable in law as the submissions made by the assessee, which were duly filed through the e-filing portal, were neither examined nor addressed in the appellate order. The ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the findings of the lower authorities.