Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Income Tax Officer vs Bhagawan Sri Balasaibaba Central Trust on 8 July, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010113682025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3526]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 29/2025
Between:
The Income Tax Officer ...APPELLANT
AND
Bhagawan Sri Balasaibaba Central Trust ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. Y N VIVEKANANDA Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following:
Heard Mr. Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the submissions and in view of the following substantial questions of law, the matter requires consideration:
1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in relying upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Raja Reddy Nalla Vs. ACIT (vide ITA No. 520/Hyd/2022 dated 31.05.2023), which relied on the judgement of Telangana High Court in the case of Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari Va Jt. CIT (vide W.P.No. 44285 of 2022 dated 26.12.2022).
2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the decision of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, Ambala City (2015) 64 taxmann.com 75 (SC) which pertains to AY 1992-93 and is totally distinguishable from the facts of the instant case in view of the fact that at present, Assessing Officer (A.O.) has no powers to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the I.T. Act and the requirement for recording of satisfaction by the A.O. in the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act does not arise.
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271D of the I.T. Act on the ground that the A.O. has not recorded satisfaction in the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that the JCIT is the appropriate authority for initiating as well as levying the penalty u/s 271D of the I.T. Act.
4. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT failed to appreciate the fact that both assessment and penalty proceedings independent in nature and that it is not required to record satisfaction of the A.O. in the original Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the I. T. Act.
5. The appellant craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to file further/additional affidavit and submit amend/modified/alter the question posed above.
Hence, admit.
List the matter after eight (8) weeks. Mr. G.V.N.Hari, learned counsel states that he received instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent.
NINALA JAYASURYA,J TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO,J