IMTIYAZ AHMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 41(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4647/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan, the appellant, contesting a penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. The penalty of INR 19,00,040 was based on the difference between the registered purchase value and the stamp value of a property, which was treated as deemed income. The appellant argued that the difference was fully explainable and challenged the penalty. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the penalty without waiting for the adjudication of the related quantum appeal. The Tribunal found this approach premature and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing a fresh review post the quantum appeal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774333 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Set aside; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4647/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan 212, New Bharat Compound, Near Kalpana Talkies, Near Baxi Singh Petrol Pump, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai : 400 070 [PAN:BKZPK0333E] …………. Appellant Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(2), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051. Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Department For the Respondent/Assessee : : Shri Mohammed Shahab Akram Khan Shri Virabhadra Mahajan Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 02.09.2025 10.09.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 05/02/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 04/03/2022, passed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No 4647/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 19,00,040/- imposed by the Id. AO u/s 270A vide Penalty Order U/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under DIN: ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2021-22/1040339570(1), Imposing Alleged Penalty U/s 270A of Rs. 19,00,040/-, @ 200% on Rs. 30,74,495/- being the difference between the Registered Value (Purchase Value) of Rs. 76,15,880/- and the Stamp Value of Rs. 1,06,90,376/- treated as deemed income from other sources. The said Penalty being imposed for Misreporting of income. The said Alleged difference being fully explainable thereby the said Penalty imposed U/s 270A may be DELETED, ON MERITS.” 3. We heard both the sides and perused the material on record. 4. By way of present appeal the Assessee has challenged the Order, dated 05/02/2025, passed by CIT(A) whereby the levy of penalty INR 19,00,040/- under Section 270A of the Act was confirmed. 5. Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Assessee submitted that the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the quantum additions made by vide Assessment Order, dated 23/02/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 143(3A)/(3B) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 was still pending for adjudication before the CIT(A). The Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that without awaiting for adjudication of the said appeal, the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order confirming the levy of penalty. It was submitted that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal challenging the levy of penalty only after taking into consideration the result of the quantum appeal. It was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Assessee that in view of the aforesaid facts, impugned order be set aside. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative did not controvert the submission made on behalf of the Assessee that the appeal preferred against the quantum addition was still pending adjudication before the CIT(A). 7. On perusal of the Assessment Order, dated 23/02/2021, we find that Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No 4647/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 the addition was made in the hands of the Assessee in respect of differences of INR.30,74,495/- between the purchase value and stamp value by treating the same as deemed income of the Assessee under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. It is admitted position that the aforesaid addition was challenged in appeal by the Assessee and the said appeal preferred was pending adjudication before the NFAC. Given the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision of the aforesaid appeal in quantum proceedings would have a bearing on the challenge to levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Given the aforesaid facts, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned Order, dated 05/02/2025, passed by the CIT(A) confirming levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act with the direction to CIT(A) to adjudication the appeal afresh after taking into consideration the order passed by NFAC in the quantum appeal preferred by the Assessee. The Assessee is directed to take necessary step to expedite disposal of the quantum appeal. The Learned Departmental Representative is also directed to place a copy of the present order before the NFAC for expeditious disposal of the quantum appeal. In terms of aforesaid, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In result, in terms of paragraph 7 above, the present appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Vikram Singh Yadav) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated :10.09.2025 Disha Raut ,Stenographer Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No 4647/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "