Ajit Narayan Patil. Kolhapur, Kolhapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur, Kolhapur

ITA 640/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6200 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 274

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.640/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Shri Ajit Narayan Patil, Plot No.29A, Sham Society, Near Crusher, Karveer, Kolhapur – 416 012. Maharashtra. PAN ABQPP6656A vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, C.S.No.622/623, 1 st Floor, Office Unit F-1/A&B, Shriram Heights, Kolhapur – 416 003. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kishor B Phadke For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of Hearing : 01.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal arise against the CIT(A), Pune- 11, Pune’s DIN & Order no.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1052079819(1), dated 13.04.2023, in proceedings u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities action in 2 ITA.No.640/PUN./2023 Shri Ajit Narayan Patil, Kolhapur. imposing sec.271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.6,71,442/- in law as well as on facts, it transpires during the course of hearing that the same hardly requires us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix. 3. Learned counsel at the outset invited our attention to the case records wherein the Assessing Officer’s Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A assessment dated 23.12.2019 as well as his penalty notice u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act, of the very date, had alleged “concealment” of particulars of income whereas the impugned penalty order dated 27.10.2021 has held him to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 4. This clinching fact aspect has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. All what has been argued at the Revenue’s behest is that both the learned lower authorities have afforded adequate opportunities of hearing regarding concealment of particulars of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as the case may be. We find no reason to concur with the Revenue’s stand supporting the impugned penalty of Rs.24,98,490/- as hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A.Shaik vs. ACIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB) has settled the law that such a penalty, in absence of the corresponding limb being satisfied, does not 3 ITA.No.640/PUN./2023 Shri Ajit Narayan Patil, Kolhapur. deserve to be upheld even at the stage of show cause notice itself. Faced with the situation, we accept the assessee’s vehement contentions seeking to reverse the impugned penalty in very terms. ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.10.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 25 th October, 2023 VBP/- /S.K.Sinha Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT (Central), Pune 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “A” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.