"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1246/CHANDI/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1247/CHANDI/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1248/CHANDI/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Gajanfar Ali C/o Usha Niwas, Near Police Station Rohru, Shimla (HP) - 171207 बनाम/ Vs. ITO Ward Rampur Shimla (HP) -172001 ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. APLPA-2865-H (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) (Virtual)- Ld. AR ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 02-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 02-12-2025 आदेश / O R D E R 1. Aforesaid three appeals by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 assails confirmation of penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(b) for Rs.60,000/-, penalty of Rs.25,000/- u/s 271A and penalty of Rs.5,01,260/- u/s 271(1)(c). The impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) Printed from counselvise.com 2 have dismissed the appeals in limine for want of condonation of delay of 139 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee’s background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals. 3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appeals qua these two penalties stand restored back to Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of merits with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The issue of delay would not be raised by Ld. CIT(A). ITA Nos.1247 & 1248/Chandi/2025 stand allowed for statistical purposes. 4. So far as the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is concerned, I find that the identical penalty of Rs.10,000/- each has been levied for 6 defaults since the assessee failed to comply with hearing notices u/s 142(1) on six occasions. Since the default is recurring in nature, I confirm penalty of Rs.10,000/- for first default and delete the remaining penalty of Rs.50,000/-. Printed from counselvise.com 3 5. ITA Nos.1247 & 1248/Chandi/2025 stand allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1246/Chandi/2025 stand partly allowed. Order pronounced on 02nd December, 2025. -Sd- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 02-12-2025 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH Printed from counselvise.com "