Aliasagar Inayathusain Bohari, Jalgaon V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3,Dhule, Dhule

ITA 220/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6862 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH BHALGAT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE : [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI, , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.220/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Shri Aliasagar Inayathusain Bohari, Proprietor, M/s. Saifee Machinery, Shop No.6, Opp. Panchayat Samiti Chopada, Dist. Jalgaon. PIN – 425 405.Maharashtra PAN ABAPB5558K vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Income Tax Office, Sakri Road, Vidya Vihar Colony, DHULE – 424 001. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ashish Bhalgat For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of Hearing : 29.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment years 2013- 2014, arise against the CIT(A), Pune-11. Pune's Din and Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1059158865(1), dated 28.12.2023, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. 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. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.05.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [GD PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 30 th May, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.