INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, AAYAKR BHAWAN, SIRASWADI ROAD, NR TV. CENTRE, JALNA V. MAHESH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA LIMITED, SAROJINIDEVI ROAD, JALNA

ITA 1228/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8113 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.Y. BALAWADE
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1228/PUN/2023 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year :2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna. V s Mahesh Nagari SahakariPathastha Limited, 14, Swami Complex, First Floor, Sarojinidevi Road, Jalna – 431203. PAN: AAAAM5643C Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri R.Y.Balawade – Addl.CIT Date of hearing 11/03/2024 Date of pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.09.2023 for A.Y.2018-19 emanating from penalty order under section 270A of the Act dated 01.10.2021. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under : “i) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deletion of penalty u/s 270A of the Act as levied by the AO. ITA No.1228/PUN/2023 Mahesh Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha [R] 2 ii) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 270A by allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has earned interest on investment which is not allowable for such deduction. iii) Any other ground of appeal that may be urged at the time of hearing.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue. It is observed that ld.CIT(A) has held as under: “6. Held:- I have perused the order of the Assessing officer and examined the reply of the assessee. Since, the quantum appeal has been decided in favour of the appellant vide appellate order dated 26.09.2023 in appeal No.NFAC/2017-18/10088162 for A.Y.2018-19, the penalty levied u/s 270A becomes infructuous.” 2.1 Thus, ld.CIT(A) has held that since the quantum appeal has been decided in favour of the assessee penalty becomes infructuous. ITAT in ITA No.1229/PUN/2023 has decided the quantum appeal in favour of assessee. Therefore, there is no mis- reporting, hence, the penalty is not maintainable. 3. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26 th March, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 26 th March, 2024/ SGR* ITA No.1228/PUN/2023 Mahesh Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha [R] 3 आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.