KRUPAL VIKRAMBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1508/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Krupal Vikrambhai Patel, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(4), Ahmedabad. The penalty was initially imposed following an ex parte assessment order which added unexplained investments and cash deposits to the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) upheld this penalty, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment order had been set aside by a Co-ordinate Bench, directing a de novo assessment, and thus found it appropriate to set aside the penalty proceedings as well, remanding it back to the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473675 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K AGAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M. K. PATEL
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1508/Ahd/2024 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Krupal Vikrambhai Patel 4 Motibag Society, B/h. Choksi Park, Bhaduatnagar, Maninagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380008 बनाम/ Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward – 6(1)(4), Ahmedabad èथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AGMPP1472D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S K Agal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 23/01/2025 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘the CIT(A)’), dated 26.06.2024 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 in the matter of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that in the course of assessment proceeding, no compliance was made by the assessee and the assessment order was passed ex parte u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 07.12.2018 at total income of Rs.38,29,010/-. In the course of assessment, an addition of Rs.35,65,526/- was made ITA No. 1508/Ahd/2024 [Krupal Vikrambhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 – in respect of unexplained investment as well as unexplained cash deposits. The AO had also initiated penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of this addition. Subsequently, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2019 imposing a penalty of Rs.10,22,126/- @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 3. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which was decided vide the impugned order and the penalty imposed by the AO was confirmed. 4. The assessee is in second appeal before us. The only ground taken by the assessee in this appeal is as under: “1. The Ld. CIT-(A), NFAC, erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs.10,22,126/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the alleged charge of concealment of income.” 5. Shri M. K. Patel, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee had also filed an appeal against the assessment order, which was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.1507/Ahd/2024 dated 13.11.2024 and the matter was set aside to the AO with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee and pass the assessment order de novo. The Ld. AR submitted that since the original assessment order is no longer in existence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act needs to be cancelled. 6. Per contra, Shri S K Agal, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that since the original assessment order was set aside to the file of the AO, the penalty order also needs to be set aside to the file of the AO. ITA No. 1508/Ahd/2024 [Krupal Vikrambhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 – 7. We have considered the rival submissions. Since, the assessment order passed in this case has been set aside to the file of the AO with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee, we deem it proper to set aside the penalty proceeding as well, to the file of the AO. The contention of the assessee that the penalty order needs to be cancelled cannot be accepted considering the fact that the assessment order passed by the AO was not cancelled by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. By setting aside the matter to the AO, the assessment proceeding has been kept in abeyance with a direction to reframe the assessment. Under the circumstances, we deem it proper to set aside the penalty matter also to the file of the AO with a direction re-visit the issue after completion of de novo assessment. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced on 23/01/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 23/01/2025 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंͬधत आयकर आयुÈत / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुÈत(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "