SEVA RAM SAHU, DURG,DURG V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(5), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 820/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Seva Ram Sahu, the appellant, who was penalized by the Income Tax Officer for unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs.16,67,000 in his bank account during the assessment year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and added this amount as unexplained investment, leading to a penalty under section 271(1)(c). Both the initial assessment and the penalty were upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal quashed the reopened assessment in a separate appeal, which led to the deletion of the penalty in the current appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835801 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.294/RPR/2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJAT KUMAR
• Section: 148; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी पाथŊ सारथी चौधरी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अवधेश क ुमार िमŵ, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 820/RPR/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Seva Ram Sahu, Ward No. 24, Janjgiri, Bhilay Marsiling Yard, Charoda, Durg-490042, Chhattisgarh Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Office of the Income Tax Officer, 18/32 Bungalow, Sector-6, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh PAN: BOQPR9400C (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Rajat Kumar, CA राजˢ की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM: This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2014-15 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.10.2025 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The sole issue challenges the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.820/RPR/2025 Seva Ram Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(5) Raipur 2 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, a non-filer of the Income Tax Return (‘ITR’), has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.16,67,000/- in his bank account during the relevant year. The Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) re-opened the case of the assessee under section 148 of the Act and completed the reopened assessment at income of Rs,16,72,250/- by taxing the cash deposits of Rs.16,67,000/- as un-explained investment. Later, the penalty of Rs.3,42,000/- of the Act was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order and penalty order, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed both appeals. The penalty was sustained on the reasoning that the quantum addition had been confirmed by him. Here, we are tasked to decide the impugned order upholding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. At the outset, Shri Rajat Kumar, CA, Ld. Authorized Representative (‘AR’) of the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the reopened assessment order was quashed by the Tribunal in assessee’s case in ITA No.294/RPR/2024. Hence, the quantum addition on which the penalty levied did not survive; therefore, the penalty had no locus standi after the Tribunal’s order in assessee’s case in ITA No.294/RPR/2024. A copy of the said order of the Tribunal was placed on the record. He thus, prayed for deletion of the penalty. To which, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR appeared in agreement. 5. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. We find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR. Since the quantum on which Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.820/RPR/2025 Seva Ram Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(5) Raipur 3 the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive anymore; therefore, we have no option except to delete the penalty of Rs.3,42,000/-. The assessee gets consequential relief. 6. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/02/2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 11/02/2026 HKS, PS आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to: आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //True copy// (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "