VISHNU RAGHUNATH SURYAVANSHI,SATARA V. ITO WARD 1, SATARA, SATARA

ITA 2684/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vishnu Raghunath Suryavanshi, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, which was originally levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The penalty was imposed due to unreported cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The initial appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to being barred by limitation, which the appellant contested. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request to set aside the penalty to align with the outcomes of the quantum appeal, which also directed a de-novo assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712076 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SARANG GUDHATE
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2684/PUN/2024 Vishnu Raghunath Suryavanshi, 83, Bhudhwar Peth, Karad, Tal.-Karad, Dist.-Satara, Karad H.O., Karad, Satara-415110 PAN : CUXPS9373P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Satara अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sarang Gudhate Department by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date of hearing : 23-06-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.07.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs.1,61,413/- levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2017-18. 2. The appeal is late by 78 days. The assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay. Sworn affidavit has been filed along with the application stating therein the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore, condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT/NFAC has erred in not condoning delay in filing Appeal. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT/NFAC has erred in Confirming Penalty, though the appeal against the Assessment Order is pending before CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.2684/PUN/2024 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld Assessing Officer has erred in levying penalty, though the appeal against the Assessment Order is pending before CIT(A). 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed u/s 271AAC(1) is time barred. Hence, needs to be quashed. 5. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, revise, substitute, delete or alter any/all of the above grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For AY 2017-18, the assessee did not file his return of income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny based on the information received through ITBA (AIMS), which revealed that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.20,89,500/- with Union Bank, Karad during the demonetization period. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act vide order dated 18.12.2019 making an addition of Rs.20,89,500/- u/s 69A of the Act. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC was initiated against the assessee and a show cause notice was issued on 09.03.2021. The Ld. AO passed the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act on 16.06.2021 levying penalty of Rs.1,61,413/-. 5. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC. Since the assessee filed the appeal with a delay 773 days (including 227 days covered by Covid Period) thereby making effective days of delay to be 546 days, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as barred by limitation for the reason that there exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delay of more than 546 days in filing the appeal. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. AR, at the outset submitted that in the assessee’s quantum appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for denovo consideration. He, therefore, requested that the present penalty appeal may also be set aside to the file of the Ld. AO to decide the same afresh after completion of the fresh assessment. 8. The Ld. DR had no objection of the above request of the Ld. AR. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.2684/PUN/2024 9. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has passed the impugned order dismissing appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation without deciding the issue on merits of the case. However, we find that in the quantum appeal of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide his appellate order dated 31.01.2025 has set aside the case to the file of the Ld. AO for de-novo consideration directing him to pass a speaking order, after affording full and complete opportunity to the assessee to present and substantiate his case before him. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO to decide the same afresh once the fresh assessment is completed. We direct and order accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. Panda) (Astha Chandra) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 23rd July, 2025. रदि आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, िररष्ठ दनजी सदचि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "