POONA SHIMS KAMAGARSAHAKARI PATSANSTHA ,PUNE V. ITO WARD 9(3), PUNE

ITA 2332/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Poona Shimsari Kamgarsahkari Patsanstha, the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed a penalty under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year 2017-18, related to underreporting of income. The appellant challenged the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that it was passed without sufficient opportunity to be heard and without considering the pending assessment order which was the foundation of the penalty. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not addressed the merits of the case and thus remitted the matter back for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36209 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIN P. KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 144; 250; 80P

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"बी\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"B\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2332/PUN/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Poona Shimsari Kamgarsahkari Patsanstha, Mumbai Pune Highway, Vadgaon Maval Pune- 412106 Maharashtra PAN-AADAP9903D Vs ITO, Ward 9(3), Pune Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT DR Date of hearing : 13.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 06.03.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the CIT(A), (National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Delhi u/s 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after also called ‘the Act’) which in turn is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s 250 dated 16.03.2022. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the principles of natural justice. 2 ITA No.2332/PUN/2024 2. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of 'audi alteram partem'. 3. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, imposed by the Ld. AO to the tune of Rs. 4,18,664/- for FY 2016-17 pertaining to AY 2017-18. 4. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in passing the impugned order u/s 250 which is in respect of penalty order u/s 270A, without considering the fact that the impugned assessment order passed u/s 144 on 29.12.2019 is still pending before the CIT (A) which is the very foundation of this penalty order. 5. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessment order passed u/s 144 which is the very foundation of this penalty order being contested is an ex parte order wherein sufficient opportunity of being heard was not granted to the appellant. 6. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) NFAC has erred in not appreciating the penalty u/s 270A in the case of the assessee on account of disallowance of 80P deduction cannot be levied on account of underreporting of income in consequence of mis- reporting of income. 7. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) NFAC has erred in not appreciating that the Ld AO has levied the 270A penalty for under reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income in absence of satisfaction of any of the conditions enumerated in section 270A(9) of the IT Act. 8. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without bringing any cogent material on record to substantiate the findings so recorded in the appellate order. 9. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 in a mechanical way, without application of mind and without appreciating the overall facts of the case. 10. That, the appellant may kindly be allowed to add, alter or modify any other modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing. 11. That, the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 12. Any other order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed. 3. At the outset from perusal of records and the impugned order we notice that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is “ex-parte qua” assessee and Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case. Though there is no representation on behalf of the assessee today during the course of hearing (though proper notice of hearing was served) we note that ground No. 1 has 3 ITA No.2332/PUN/2024 been raised challenging the passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A). 4. Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely dismissed the appeal in limine, without discussing anything on merits of the issues. The settled position of law mandates that the Id.CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issues raised in appeal on merits as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act giving reasons thereof. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that Id.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an ex-parte order. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and there being no objection from the side of Ld. Departmental Representative, we in the interest of justice deem it proper to give an opportunity to the assessee. In view thereof without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues on merits in the instant appeals are being remitted to the file of Id.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to file any evidence as it deems expedient and Ld.CIT(A) shall consider all the submissions of the assessee and pass the orders in conformity with the provisions envisaged u/s 250(6) of the Act. Assessee is also directed to provide correct email id to the department for receiving the hearing notices from the ITBA portal. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the Ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are set aside 4 ITA No.2332/PUN/2024 and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the year under appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 06th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 06th March, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"बी\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"B\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "