NIKHIL VIJENDRA JAIN ,PUNE V. .ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

ITA 1450/PUN/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Nikhil Vijendra Jain against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was related to an addition of an unsecured loan of Rs.37,54,170 during the assessment year 2018-19. The ITAT noted that the quantum addition had been set aside in a previous ruling, and thus, there were no grounds for the penalty to stand. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472110 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2024
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.684/PUN/2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIR MANISH MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUHAS P BORA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" ।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1450/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nikhil Vijendra Jain, 319, East Wing, Arrora Towers, 3rd Floor, M.G.Road, Camp, Pune – 411001. PAN: AFLPJ9744G V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Suhas P Bora – AR Revenue by Shir Manish Mehta – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 04/12/2024 Date of pronouncement 12/12/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] for Assessment Year 2018-19 dated 14.02.2024 passed u/sec.250 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in levying penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act without appreciating the ITA No.1450/PUN/2024 2 facts of the case of the appellant, and without providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) further erred in levying penalty only on the basis of the conclusion by the Id AO in the assessment order as well as in the penalty order on the ground that the appellant did not furnish his reply and satifactoriy explanation on the said addition of unsecured loan of Rs.37,54,170/- during the course of penalty proceedings. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of levying penalty without appreciating that the Penalty Order passed u/sec.271AAC(1) of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio as the same has been passed without considering the fact that the appellant has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi against the assessment order u/sec. r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 1448 of the Act on 11.08.2021 and the penalty order has been passed on 25.11.2021 WHICH IS BEFORE THE PASSING OF Order by CIT(A) which is not justified in law. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR submitted that the quantum addition has been set- aside by the ITAT in ITA No.684/PUN/2024 for A.Y.2018-19 dated 05.08.2024. Ld.AR submitted that hence no penalty is maintainable. Ld.AR filed petition for condonation of delay. Condonation of Delay : 2.1 We have perused the submission of the assessee and are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Accordingly, Delay is condoned. ITA No.1450/PUN/2024 3 Findings and Analysis : 3. In this case, ITAT Vide order in ITA No.684/PUN/2024 has set-aside the additions of Rs.37,54,170/- to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Thus, at this juncture, there are no additions regarding concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars. Once the quantum addition is set-aside there are no legs for penalty to stand. However, it is also observed that quantum addition has been set-aside to the AO for denovo adjudication, therefore, we set-aside the penalty order to the AO for denovo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee shall file necessary documents before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th December, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 12th Dec, 2024/ SGR* ITA No.1450/PUN/2024 4 आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "