PURAMA RAMAKRISHNA RAO,SALURU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

ITA 429/VIZ/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Purama Ramakrishna Rao, the appellant, who contested a penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram, following an addition made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. However, the Tribunal found that the quantum addition, which was the basis for the penalty, had been deleted in a separate appeal (ITA No. 221/Viz/2024). Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty did not survive and should be removed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46536 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 221/Viz/2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA VILLURI
• Assessee Lawyers: GVN HARI
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 429/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Purama Ramakrishna Rao, Saluru, Vizianagaram District – 535597. [PAN : ALTPP4003E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram. अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍ यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri GVN Hari, AR रधजस्‍ व‍द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date of hearing: 19/11/2024 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 25/11/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 01/07/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Purama Ramakrishna Rao (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal with a delay of 40 days. ITA No. 429/Viz/2024 Page 2 of 3 2. With respect to the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 15/11/2024 and stated that due to ill health of the assessee, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time. On perusal of the reasons advanced by the assessee for not filing of the appeal within the prescribed time limit, we find that because of the assessee’s ill health the assessee was prevented to file the appeal within the prescribed time limit. In our considered view, the assessee’s reason for belated filing of the appeal constitutes a ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ and therefore we hereby condone the delay of 40 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. At the outset the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the impugned penalty in this appeal emanates as a consequence of addition made by the learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) U/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). But, against the quantum addition the assessee preferred appeals and the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal by order dated 25/09/2024 in ITA No. 221/Viz/2024 (AY 2017-18) pleased to delete the addition and therefore, the penalty does not survive. He further submitted that as on the date of the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in this penalty appeal, the quantum appeal was pending before the Tribunal and therefore, the learned CIT(A) did not have the benefit of learning the result in the quantum appeal. 4. The learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) does not contradict the fact of deletion of the quantum addition in ITA No. 221/Viz/2024 by order dated 25/09/2024. 5. On a careful perusal of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that when once the quantum addition is deleted by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in ITA No. 221/Viz/2024, by order dated 25/09/2024, the penalty does not survive and therefore, we hereby direct the learned AO to delete the addition. Grounds answered accordingly. ITA No. 429/Viz/2024 Page 3 of 3 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (S. BALAKRISHNAN) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 25/11/2024 OKK Copy forwarded to: 1. Purama Ramakrishna Rao, C/o. Harika Agencies, D.No. 38/355, Main Road, Salur, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh-535597. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, O/o. ITO Koppu Guarana Building, Siddartha Nagar, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh-535002. 3. Pr. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam. 5. GUARD FILE. आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam "