RAVINDRA NATH PATEL ,MAHARAJGANJ V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GORKHPUR, GORKHPUR

ITA 27/ALLD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ravindra Nath Patel Kasmaria against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2008-09. The penalty was initially challenged before the CIT(A), which upheld the penalty. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which found that the quantum appeal was still pending before the CIT(A) and thus restored the penalty matter back to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh in conjunction with the quantum appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711603 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE DID NOT EXPRESS ANY; REVENUE; A.K. SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: VIDISHA SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH “SMC”, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.27/ALLD/2025 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ravindra Nath Patel Kasmaria Kasmaria, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh-273303. v. Income Tax Officer Aayakar Bhawan, Income Tax Office, Anand Nagar Road, Maharajganj, UP- 273165. PAN: AKBPP8792R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms Vidisha Srivastava, Adv Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Department, Gorakhpur under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the assessment year 2008-09. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: - “1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law to pass the order under section 271(1)(c) on 05.03.2024 imposing the penalty of Rs. 3,04,000/- whereas a request letter was submitted before the Ld. AO to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of appeal by the Hon’ble ITAT Circuit Bench Varanasi but without considering the request of the appellant the LAO has imposed the penalty which is bad in law and against the principle of natural justice and as such penalty imposed by LAO be quashed. 2. Because the Hon’ble ITAT Circuit Bench Varanasi vide order dated 17.07.2018 has remanded back the quantum appeal before the Ld. CIT (A)- NFAC, for fresh consideration. 3. Because the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirm the penalty order as was passed by the LAO taking the ground that none appeared from the appellant side to argue the case whereas the CIT (A) was duty bound to pass the order on the basis of material available on record for which he failed. 4. Because the Ld. CIT (A) erred in facts and law to confirm the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the If Act, whereas the fact is that neither there is Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.27/ALLD/2025 Page 2 of 4 any concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income by the appellant and hence confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified, bad in law, and against the principle of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. 5. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant deserves full relief from the stage of Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. The appellant craves the right to add/modify/alter any others grounds of appeals during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 1.1 The appeal is barred by limitation by 60 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons sated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; therefore, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (2) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale grain dealer and rice manufacturer and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at Rs.15,39,490/- as against the returned income of the assessee of Rs.1,49,140/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also passed order dated 19.03.2015 levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the assessment order and also against the order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has decided the appeal against order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the confirmation of penalty by learned CIT(A). (2.1). At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative (“AR”) for the assessee submitted that the Income Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.27/ALLD/2025 Page 3 of 4 Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Circuit Bench Varanasi, vide order dated 17.07.2018 has remanded back the quantum appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. She further submitted that the fresh order is yet to be passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2018 in the quantum appeal. She further submitted that the matter regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is a subject matter of the present appeal, should also be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), with the direction to pass fresh order after deciding the quantum appeal in pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2018 of ITAT. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to this. (3) Both sides were heard. Materials available on record have been perused. As representatives before us, the quantum appeal in respect of additions made in the assessment order is pending before the Ld. CIT(A) in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2018 of ITAT. In fitness of things, therefore and as Representatives of both sides are in agreement with this, the matter regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is also restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass de novo order, as deemed fit in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to both sides and after deciding quantum appeal in pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2018 of ITAT. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SUBHASH MALGURIA] [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24/07/2025 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.27/ALLD/2025 Page 4 of 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary Printed from counselvise.com "