NIKHIL VIJENDRA JAIN ,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1450/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 December 2024AY 2018-19Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was set aside, the penalty order had no basis to stand. Therefore, the penalty order was also set aside for de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act. The original addition on which the penalty was based had been set aside by the ITAT for de novo adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271AAC(1) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been set aside for fresh adjudication. Whether the penalty order is valid if passed before the appellate order on the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora – AR
Hearing: 04/12/2024Pronounced: 12/12/2024

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] for Assessment Year 2018-19 dated 14.02.2024 passed u/sec.250 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in levying penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case of the appellant, and without providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) further erred in levying penalty only on the basis of the conclusion by the Id AO in the assessment order as well as in the penalty order on the ground that the appellant did not furnish his reply and satifactoriy explanation on the said addition of unsecured loan of Rs.37,54,170/- during the course of penalty proceedings.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of levying penalty without appreciating that the Penalty Order passed u/sec.271AAC(1) of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio as the same has been passed without considering the fact that the appellant has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi against the assessment order u/sec. r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 1448 of the Act on 11.08.2021 and the penalty order has been passed on 25.11.2021 WHICH IS BEFORE THE PASSING OF Order by CIT(A) which is not justified in law.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” Submission of ld.AR :

2. Ld.AR submitted that the quantum addition has been set- aside by the ITAT in for A.Y.2018-19 dated 05.08.2024. Ld.AR submitted that hence no penalty is maintainable. Ld.AR filed petition for condonation of delay.

Condonation of Delay : 2.1 We have perused the submission of the assessee and are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Accordingly, Delay is condoned.

2 Findings and Analysis : 3. In this case, ITAT Vide order in has set-aside the additions of Rs.37,54,170/- to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Thus, at this juncture, there are no additions regarding concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars. Once the quantum addition is set-aside there are no legs for penalty to stand. However, it is also observed that quantum addition has been set-aside to the AO for denovo adjudication, therefore, we set-aside the penalty order to the AO for denovo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee shall file necessary documents before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →