"I.T.A. No.451/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.451/LKW/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishan Kumar Vinod Kumar, 51/1, Ramganj, Kanpur-208001. PAN:AAFHK0124A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(2) Aaykar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA: A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.451/LKW/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 17.04.2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1075678063(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “01. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal ex-parte on account of delay in filing the appeal, thereby upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.1,16,340/- under section 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without giving any opportunity to explain the delay, the order passed is bad in law and be set aside. 02. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in denying the opportunity of being heard to explain and substantiate the cause of delay in filing the appeal, the order passed by the CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of law, the same be set aside. 03. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts of the case, in as much as, the appeal was filed late for the reasons that the PAN No. / Portal was blocked, for reasons of which the appeal could not be filed electronically whereas, the appeal was filed manually within the time as provided, the CIT(A) Appellant by Shri Bhuvnesh Mittal, Advocate Respondent by Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT (D.R.) Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.451/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 has failed to take cognizance of the same, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and be quashed. 04. Because the CIT(A) has failed to decide the appeal on merits of the case, which he ought to have done, there being no finding on the grounds raised on merits, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and be set aside.” (B) In this case, assessment order dated 05.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.42,42,748/-. Separately, the Assessing Officer also passed order u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) dated 16.02.2022 whereby penalty amounting to Rs.1,16,340/- was imposed. The assessee’s appeals against the aforesaid assessment order and against the aforesaid order u/s 271AAC of the Act were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed appeals against both the impugned appellate orders of the Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 31.10.2025 of Lucknow Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; in ITA. No.450/LKW/2025, the matter regarding addition made in the aforesaid assessment order dated 05.12.2019 has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to frame assessment afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (C) The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 17.04.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) whereby the assessee’s appeal against imposition of aforesaid penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act amounting to Rs.1,16,340/- was dismissed. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the matter regarding the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act should also be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law; because the matter regarding additions made in the assessment order were already restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2025. The Ld. Departmental Representative of Revenue expressed no objection to this. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.451/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 In view of the foregoing, all the issues in dispute regarding the aforesaid penalty u/s 271AAC of I. T. Act, amounting to Rs.1,16,340/-, imposed by the Assessing Officer in the aforesaid order dated 16.02.2022 are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 24/03/2026) Sd/. Sd/. (KUL BHARAT) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 24/03/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R. ITAT Printed from counselvise.com "