JHARKHAND BHAWAN EVAM ANAY SANIRMAN KARMKAR KALYAN BOARD,RANCHI V. ITO WARD 1(1), RANCHI

ITA 325/RAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar Kalyan Board against penalties imposed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Ranchi, for the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2018-19. The penalties were related to non-compliance with statutory notices and failure to file returns. The Tribunal considered the appeals together due to their common grounds, except for variations in the amount of penalties. The main legal contention revolved around the penalties imposed under Sections 272A(1)(d), 271F, and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the issuance of notices under Sections 142(1) and 148. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalties was based on the restoration of the quantum appeals to the Assessing Officer, which implied that the issues leading to the penalties were still under consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716520 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Assessment Year Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar Kalyan Board, Ranchi, Joint Labour Building, Behind Ashoka Hotel, Doranda, Ranchi PAN No. AABAJ 4159 K Appellant/ Assessee Assessee represented by Department represented by Date of hearing Date of pronouncement PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee(s) against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2013-14, 2015 has raised common grounds of appeal except variation in amount of penalty and the relevant Therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and are being decided b 2. Firstly we will take ITA No. 321/Ran/2024 for the A.Y. 2018 though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeals but the main grievance of the assessee is that the penalty was imposed by the Assessing IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 321 to 325/Ran/2024 (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2018 Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar Kalyan Board, Ranchi, Joint Labour Building, Behind Ashoka Hotel, Doranda, Ranchi-834002 AABAJ 4159 K Vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Ranchi. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri M.K. Choudhary, A.R. with Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR 18/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 18/08/2025 O R D E R These are the appeals filed by the assessee(s) against the separate orders of NFAC, Delhi dated 25/07/2024, 14/06/2024 and 10/06/2024 14, 2015-16 and 2018-19. In all these appeals, the assessee raised common grounds of appeal except variation in amount of penalty relevant Sections under which penalties have Therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and are being decided by this common order. Firstly we will take ITA No. 321/Ran/2024 for the A.Y. 2018 the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeals but the main grievance of the assessee is that the penalty was imposed by the Assessing P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 16 and 2018-19) 1(1), Respondent/ Revenue Shri M.K. Choudhary, A.R. with Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR These are the appeals filed by the assessee(s) against the separate orders of dated 25/07/2024, 14/06/2024 and 10/06/2024 19. In all these appeals, the assessee raised common grounds of appeal except variation in amount of penalty ies have been imposed. Therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals have been clubbed y this common order. Firstly we will take ITA No. 321/Ran/2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19. In this appeal, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeals but the main grievance of the assessee is that the penalty was imposed by the Assessing Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.321 to 325/Ran/2024 Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar kalian Board vs ITO P a g e 2 | 4 Officer under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short, the Act) amounting to ₹ 20,000/- and the same was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3. The facts of the case, in brief are that notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31/03/2022 for the A.Y. 2018-19 was issued for the reason that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to ₹ 62,12,17,000/- in his bank account maintained in the State Bank of India and also earned interest other than interest on securities (Section 194A) of ₹ 7,33,06,329/-. Assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with section 144 again read with section 144B of the Act on 17/03/2023. The income was assessed at ₹ 69,45,23,329/-. Penalty proceedings under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act was also initiated by the Assessing Officer on 01/02/2023 for non-compliance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 20/10/2022 and 15/12/2022. The Assessing Officer, therefore, imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 13/08/2023. 4. Aggrieved by the order of penalty passed as above, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal. 6. During the appellate proceedings before us, the ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the facts that this Bench of Hon'ble ITAT has already decided the quantum appeal vide ITA No. 99 to 101/Ran/2025 order dated 13/06/2025 in the case of the same assessee and the appeal was partly Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.321 to 325/Ran/2024 Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar kalian Board vs ITO P a g e 3 | 4 allowed and matter was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issues involved in the quantum appeals. Since the matter is already restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act is deleted. 7. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. Now we take ITA No. 322/Ran/2024 and ITA No. 324/Ran/2024 for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively. 9. In both these appeals, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty under Section 271F of the Act amounting to Rs.₹ 5,000/- each and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that this Bench of Hon'ble ITAT has already decided the quantum appeal in ITA No. 99 to 101/Ran/2025 vide order dated 13/06/2025 in the case of the same assessee and the appeal was partly allowed and matter was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issues involved in the quantum appeals. Since the matter is already restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271F of the Act in both these appeals are deleted. 10. In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed. 11. Now we take ITA No. 323/Ran/2024 and ITA No. 325/Ran/2024 for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively. 12. In both these appeals, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.₹ 20,000/- and ₹ 40,000/- respectively and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.321 to 325/Ran/2024 Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar kalian Board vs ITO P a g e 4 | 4 Assessing Officer. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that this Bench of Hon'ble ITAT has already decided the quantum appeal in ITA No. 99 to 101/Ran/2025 vide order dated 13/06/2025 in the case of the same assessee and the appeal was partly allowed and matter was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issues involved in the quantum appeals. Since the matter is already restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act in both these appeals are deleted. 13. In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order announced in open court on 18th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 18/08/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi Printed from counselvise.com "