ALIASAGAR INAYATHUSAIN BOHARI,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,DHULE, DHULE

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that not only the learned CIT(A)'s impugned order upholding the Assessing Officer’s action imposing sec.271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.22,31,249/- has been passed ex-parte but also the corresponding quantum issue is 2 ITA.No.220/PUN./2024 further stated to be pending in first appeal before the very authority. That being the case and after giving our thoughtful consideration to the instant sole substantive issue of correctness of the impugned penalty proceedings, we are of the considered view that the same deserves to be restored back to the CIT(A) in light of the corresponding quantum findings in larger interest of justice. We make it clear that after the assessee’s quantum appeal is decided, the instant penalty appeal shall thereafter be taken for his afresh appropriate adjudication preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to the rider that it is the assessee’s sole risk and responsibility to prove the case in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.