ABDULWAHID ABDULKARIM QURESHI,SANGAMNER V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 2086/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi, the appellant, who contested a penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2 Ahmednagar, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi. The penalty was levied following a quantum addition of Rs. 34,74,000 for unexplained cash deposits. The appellant argued that the quantum addition had been previously struck down by the Tribunal in related assessment years, rendering the penalty unjust. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' decision. However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, leading to the deletion of the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780301 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others, Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.Y. BALAWADE
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET JOSHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"एस एम सी\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"SMC\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2086/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi, Bharatnagar, Sangamner, Ahmednagar-422605 Maharashtra PAN-AAIPQ9677R Vs ITO, Ward-2 Ahmednagar Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue by : Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 30.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 07.10.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 21.02.2025 which is arising out of order passed u/s 271 dated 10.09.2022. 2. Registry has informed that the present appeal is time barred by 128 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed. The main reason for the delay is that the assessee was undergoing medical treatment for Hypertension and Blood Pressure. Medical Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.2086/PUN/2025 certificate of the Doctor is enclosed. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and also taking guidance from the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), I hereby condone the delay of 128 days and admit the application for adjudication. 3. The sole grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act at Rs. 2,68,366/- computed on the quantum addition of Rs. 34,74,000/- 4. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this Hon’ble Tribunal has already deleted the quantum addition made in the hands of assessee by quashing the assessment proceedings vide ITA No. 893 & 894/PUN/2024 dated 06.08.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 and therefore no penalty is leviable on the assessee. 5. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the lower authorities. 6. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. The penalty u/s 271AAC(1) at Rs. 2,68,366/- is challenged before me. The impugned penalty has been levied on the addition of Rs. 34,74,000/- made for unexplained cash deposit. I further find that this Tribunal vide its order ITA No. 893 & 894/PUN/2024 dated 06.08.2024 has already deleted the quantum addition made by the AO for A.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-18. Under these given facts and Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.2086/PUN/2025 circumstances since the impugned penalty has been levied on the quantum addition which this Tribunal has already struck down, therefore the impugned penalty has no legs to stand and deserves to be deleted. Finding of Ld. CIT(A) is reversed and impugned penalty is deleted. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 07th day of October, 2025. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 07th October, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"SMC\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"SMC\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "