SHRI VIKRAM SHANTILAL PATEL,VADODARA V. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

MA 130/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Vikram Shantilal Patel, the appellant, contesting a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which was initially linked to quantum additions of Rs. 9,56,400 made by the CIT(A). The Tribunal had previously restored both the quantum additions and the penalty to the file of the Assessing Officer. However, the appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision was based on a misunderstanding of the facts, specifically that the quantum additions had been restored when, in fact, no appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s decision on those additions. The Tribunal acknowledged this error and decided to recall the earlier order and set the matter for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25367 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Laws Referred To: Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.P. SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH J SHAH; RUSHIN PATEL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A No.130/Ahd/2024 in I.T.A. No.289/Ahd/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Vikram Shantilal Patel, 13/B, Sanmati Society, Akota, Baroda-390010. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5), Baroda. [PAN No.ACQPP7443J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.Rs. Respondent by: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R Date of Hearing 18.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 14.02.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed against the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 289/Ahd/2018, which was restored to the file of the AO by the Tribunal on the ground that since the quantum additions have been restored to the file of the AO, therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the said order is also liable to be restored to the file of Assessing Officer. 2. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed against the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 289/Ahd/2018 dated 28.06.2024, wherein the Tribunal had restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer on the ground that since the quantum additions have been restored to the file of M.A No.130/Ahd/2024 In ITA No.289/Ahd/2018 Asst.Year –2009-10 - 2– Assessing Officer, therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the said order is also liable to be restored to the file of Assessing Officer. 3. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in ITA No. 289/Ahd/2018, the penalty was arising out of addition of Rs. 9,56,400/- made by Ld. CIT(A), against which no appeal was filed by the assessee. However, on merits, the assessee has a good case and no penalty is liable to be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, taking into consideration the assessee’s particular set of facts. In the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, it was pointed out that the order of Tribunal restoring the penalty proceeding to the file of Assessing Officer was on an incorrect presumption of facts that the matter in quantum proceedings has been restored to the file of Assessing Officer, whereas the in the present case, no appeal was filed by the assessee against order of Ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the order was passed by the Tribunal, on an incorrect presumption of fact, then on this limited issue, the order is liable to be recalled. 4. On going through the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that the present order passed by Tribunal dated 28.06.2024 needs to be recalled and put up for fresh hearing, since the original appeal relating to imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was restored to the file of Assessing Officer on an incorrect understanding that the quantum proceedings have been restored to the file of Assessing Officer, whereas in fact no appeal had been preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A). M.A No.130/Ahd/2024 In ITA No.289/Ahd/2018 Asst.Year –2009-10 - 3– 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 289/Ahd/2018 is hereby recalled and put for fresh hearing. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal for fresh hearing in due course of time. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 14.02.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 14.02.2025 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 11.02.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 11.02.2025 3. Other Member .02.2025 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 11.02.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 14.02.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 14.02.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 14.02.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order…………………………………… "