RAMKRUSHNA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE V. ITO WARD 10(1), PUNE

ITA 1411/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ramkrushna Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, a credit cooperative society, which appealed against a penalty of Rs.3,23,719 imposed under section 270A of the IT Act, following an ex-parte assessment order under section 144. The penalty was based on additions made in the quantum assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18. The CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal against the penalty, which led to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the appeal against the quantum addition was still pending and decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to await the outcome of the quantum addition appeal before re-evaluating the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778246 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHASHANK OJHA
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1411/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ramkrushna Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nirgudsar Ambegav, Pune- 412406. PAN : AANFR7185C Vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.04.2024 passed u/s 270A of the IT Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Shashank Ojha Date of hearing : 20.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1411/PUN/2024 2 adjournment was filed despite due service of notice of hearing, therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal based on written submission filed by the assessee as well as after hearing Ld. DR. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a credit cooperative society and ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 of the IT Act was passed in his case. Subsequently, penalty of Rs.3,23,719/- u/s 270A of the IT Act was imposed on the basis of additions made in the quantum assessment order. Being aggrieved with the quantum assessment order as well as penalty order u/s 270A of the IT Act, the assessee preferred appeals before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. During the pendency of appeal against the quantum assessment order, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 30.04.2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order and confirmed the penalty of Rs.3,23,719/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the IT Act. 4. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record including written submission filed by the assessee. In this Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1411/PUN/2024 3 regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has confirmed the penalty of Rs.3,23,719/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the IT Act, however, we also find that the appeal against quantum addition is still pending for adjudication by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Considering the above fact that the appeal against the quantum addition is still pending for disposal on the basis of which impugned penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act was imposed, therefore, in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh involving the issue of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act upon disposal of appeal against the quantum addition for the same assessment year filed by the assessee. Needless to mention here that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall decide the appeal against the impugned penalty order after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and to produce relevant documents/case laws in support of grounds of appeal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1411/PUN/2024 4 Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 08th day of October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 08th October, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "