RASHMI ARUN CHOUGULE,KOLHAPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1892/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rashmi Arun Chogule, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The penalty was initially imposed due to alleged unexplained investments amounting to ₹25,96,575, which the assessee claimed were sourced from a loan and invested in commodity trading. The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty, but the ITAT found that the appeal regarding the quantum addition was still pending and had been set aside for de novo adjudication. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to reassess the penalty in light of the pending quantum appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782337 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: EKNATH ABHANG ADD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 271(1)(c); 69

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.1892/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rashmi Arun Chogule, 1557, D Ward, Dhanawade Galli, Shukrawarpeth, Kolhapur – 416002. Maharashtra. V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. PAN: AEHPC4149R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 30/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2014-15 dated 20.06.2025 emanating from the Penalty Order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.09.2022. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1892/PUN/2025 [A] 2 “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), Delhi, erred in appreciating fact that the quantum appeal against the assessment order has been restored to the file of the CIT (A) by the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench, vide appeal no. ITA No.2202/PUN/2024 dated 10.12.2024 and hence, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is premature and liable to be deleted. 2 The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the alleged unexplained investment of ₹25,96,575/- was sourced from a loan of 231,50,000/- taken from Geojit Financial Services Ltd. and the same was invested in commodity trading with Geojit Comtrade Ltd. Therefore, the addition made under section 69 was unjustified and, consequently, the penalty levied thereon is not sustainable. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of 26,83,679/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the said penalty is unjustified, arbitrary, and bad in law. 4 The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting an effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5 The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue and perused the records. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1892/PUN/2025 [A] 3 appeal of the Assessee, as Assessee had not filed any reply to notices. 2.1 In this case, the Assessee’s Appeal against assessment order in ITA No.2202/PUN/2024 had been set-aside to ld.CIT(A) by ITAT vide order dated 16.12.2024. Thus, when ld.CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the Assessee against Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, on 20.06.2025, the ITAT had already set-aside Quantum Addition for denovo adjudication. 3. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the Assessee. 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 30 Oct, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- VINAY BHAMORE Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 30 Oct, 2025/ SGR Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1892/PUN/2025 [A] 4 आदेशकीप्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, “एस एम सऩ” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1892/PUN/2025 [A] 5 S. No Details Date Initi als Designati on 1 Draft dictated on 30.10.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Final Draft placed before author 30.10.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member .10.2025 JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "