SUCHITRA SHASHIKANT KHAVARE,HATKANANGLE ,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1426/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 December 2024Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present necessary documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-filing of a reply. The ITAT had previously set aside the quantum addition to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) should be sustained when the quantum addition has been set aside. The procedural issue of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity for a reply.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 69,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE

Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S Shingte – AR
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawalil – Addl.CIT(DR)
Hearing: 17/12/2024Pronounced: 20/12/2024

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] u/sec.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; dated 17.05.2024 for the A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in, not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and thereby confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition made by the AO of Rs.15,00,000/- u/s 69 representing investment in immovable property.” Submission of ld.AR :

2. The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that this is an appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The quantum addition has been set-aside by ITAT to ld.CIT(A) vide its order in for A.Y. 2013-14. Submission of ld.DR :

3. Ld.DR for the Revenue submitted that Penalty may also be set-aside to the ld.CIT(A).

Findings &Analysis : 4. In this case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y.2013-14 has been levied vide order dated 21.09.2022. Assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, as Assessee failed to file any reply. It is observed that ITAT Pune Bench in in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2013-14, has set-aside the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), emanating from the assessment order dated 22.08.2022 to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Therefore, the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, passed by ld.CIT(A) emanating from Penalty Order under 2 section 271(1)(c) is also set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.

5.

In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →