SRI. VISWANATH PRASANNA KUMAR DIKSHIT,BANGALORE V. .THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2038/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Viswanath Prasanna Kumar Dikshit, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty order under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was initially confirmed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The penalty of Rs. 17,72,308 was imposed due to non-filing of income tax returns and subsequent assessments that included significant additions to his income. The appellant's delay in filing the appeal against the penalty was not condoned by the CIT(A), leading to the current appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT found merit in the appellant's argument that the penalty should not be confirmed until the quantum of income assessed is finalized, hence restoring the matter to the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25266 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNAINA BHATIA
• Keywords: Set aside; Salary income

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2038/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2018-19 Shri Viswanath Prasanna Kumar Dikshit, D-103/2, Karnataka CNC Tech Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Estate, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 044. PAN: ABBPD 0848B Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5[3][1], Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 02.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee/appellant for the assessment year 2018-19 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 20.9.2024 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order u/s. 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) levying a penalty of Rs.17,72,308 was dismissed by not condoning the delay of 176 days. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was ITA No.2038/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 4 dismissed in limine by the ld. CIT(A). Assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an individual, did not file his return of income and therefore assessment was completed u/s. 143 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 16.3.2023 at assessed income of Rs.1.06 lakhs wherein addition of Rs.97,50,000 was made on account of sale of immovable property, salary income and remuneration from the partnership firm in the assessment. Penalty was also initiated u/s. 270A of the Act by penalty order dated 24.8.2023. The same was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) late by 176 days. Assessee explained the delay stating that the assessment order was well as the penalty order were not received by the assessee on email or it has gone into spam folder. Further, the assessee was not aware of the time limits and was not having service of any tax consultant, therefore, it has caused the delay. 3. The ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay holding that correspondence was delivered to the assessee at the available e- mail address. He was also of the view that assessee has not tried to submit any screenshots and dismissed the appeal as not admitted. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us wherein it was submitted that if this appeal is not admitted, the penalty levied by the ld. AO remains confirmed. However, the assessee who filed an appeal against the quantum order of assessment before the CIT(A) and the ITA No.2038/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4 ld. CIT(A) as per order dated 30.10.2024 has set aside the order back to the AO, whereas the penalty appellate order dated 20.9.2024 was passed by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty. The ld. CIT(A) should not have disposed the penalty appeal, unless he disposed the quantum appeal. Therefore, this appeal also be restored back to the file of the AO. 5. The ld. DR supported the order of the ld. lower authorities. 6. In view of this, the appeal of the assessee against the confirmation of the penalty u/s. 270A also deserves to be restored back to the file of the ld. AO in view of the order of the ld. CIT(A) restoring the same matter in quantum appeal to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Needless to say that if on reframing the assessment order pursuant to the order of the ld. CIT(A), the ld. AO may reinitiate the penalty u/s. 270A of the Act in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of December, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ( SOUNDARARAJAN K.) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 20th December, 2024. /Desai S Murthy / ITA No.2038/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. "