UNITED MEDISCRIBE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD V. ITO., WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 260/HYD/2025

AI Insights

United Mediscribe P Ltd appealed against the penalty orders issued by the Income Tax Officer under section 271(1)(c) concerning additions made to their income regarding interest income on FDR for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The CIT (A) had previously set aside the assessment orders under sections 144 and 147, directing a fresh assessment. The Tribunal found that since the basis for the penalties (the assessment orders) had been set aside, the penalties themselves could not stand and thus were set aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration post-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473143 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SBR KUMAR LAGHIMSETTY
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 144; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" ITA Nos 259 and 260 of 2025 United Mediscribe P Ltd Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ SM-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.259 & 260/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 12-13) United Mediscribe P Ltd Hyderabad PAN:AAACU6026D Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetty, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/04/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Bench: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders both dated 24/01/2025 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively, arising from the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised identical grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the A.Y 2011-12 are reproduced as under: ITA Nos 259 and 260 of 2025 United Mediscribe P Ltd Page 2 of 6 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty ITA Nos 259 and 260 of 2025 United Mediscribe P Ltd Page 3 of 6 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition on account of interest income on FDR for these two A.Ys. He has pointed out that in the quantum appeals, the learned CIT (A) has set aside the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would not survive. He has filed the copies of the order of learned CIT (A) in the appeals filed against the assessment order and submitted that once the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 has been set aside by the learned CIT (A) for fresh assessment, then penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to have been deleted by the learned CIT (A). Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the impugned orders of the learned CIT (A) are liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration as per the outcome of the remand proceedings in quantum appeal. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the orders of the learned CIT (A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material available on record. As it is manifest from the record that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the additions made on account of interest income on FDR for these 2 A.Ys. The said addition made by the Assessing Officer while passing the order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 for the A.Ys 2011-12 and 2012-13 were challenged before the learned ITA Nos 259 and 260 of 2025 United Mediscribe P Ltd Page 4 of 6 CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) vide two separate orders both dated 20/01/2025 set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 in Para 6.67 for the A.Y 2011-12 and 6.7 for the A.Y 2012-13 as under: A.Y 2011-12 A.Y 2012-13 ITA Nos 259 and 260 of 2025 United Mediscribe P Ltd Page 5 of 6 6. Thus, the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 have been set aside by the learned CIT (A) with the direction to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, once the assessment orders and addition against which the penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 has been set aside, then the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) would not survive. Hence, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for both the years are set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the same, if need arises as per the outcome of the proceedings as per the directions of the learned CIT (A) in quantum appeal. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 3rd April, 2025 Vinodan/sps ITA Nos 259 and 260 of 2025 United Mediscribe P Ltd Page 6 of 6 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 United Mediscribe (P) Ltd, No.1397 New Street No.20 Tarnaka Secunderabad 500017, 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 17(1) Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "