vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR Mk

0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oJa hjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkb]Z ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyl-a@ITA No. 1077/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 The DCIT cuke M/s. Bharat Spun Pipe And Construction Company Circle-1 Vs. 43, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302 012 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjl-a@PAN/GIR No.: AABFB 4917 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Tarun Kumar Mittal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Anil Kumar Bhardvaj, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 01/10/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 07/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM By way of present the revenue challenges the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 28.05.2025. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2017.18. In this appeal the solitary ground raised by revenue reads as under :

‘’Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,the ld. CIT(A)is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,18,37,790/- imposed u/s 271AAC(1) of theAct, 1961 on the ground that the quantum addition has been deleted by CIT(A) in quantum appeal ignoring the facts that the Department has filed appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT,Jaipur Bench, Jaipur which is pending?’’

2.1 Apropos solitary ground of appeal of the Department, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:-

‘’3. The appellant vide his letter dated 13.01.2025 submitted that the additions which formed the basis for the penalty under Section 271AAC(1) have been unwarranted and deserve to be deleted which was imposed through order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3). The appeal in this case has already been disposed of and the additions have been deleted by first appellate authority vide order dated 08/01/2025. The necessary copy of assessment order under section 250 of income tax act 1961 was passed through Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071990814(1) dated 08/01/2025 is enclosed herewith. Legal Precedent and Relevant Provisions. The law is settled that penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1) should not be initiated or concluded if the additions are dropped or the issue is still under appeal. This principle has been upheld in various judicial pronouncements, and hence, the penalty order in this case is premature and liable to be cancelled. Given the above circumstances, we hereby request you to relief may be granted by deleting the penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) for A.Y. 2017-18 and drop the proceedings in view of the fact that the penalty order has been passed even though the appeal is pending before the first appellate authority and latter on the additions have been dropped by first appellate authority

5. Adjudication: The appellant's quantum appeal against the order u/s.147r.w.s143(3) dated 29/05/2023 has been adjudicated by the NFAC vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071990814(1) dated 08/01/2025 wherein the NFAC has allowed the appeal of the appellant and deleted the addition made u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 15,32,40,000/-towards bogus contract receipts. The NFAC has held that from the perusal of documents furnished during assessment proceedings it can be concluded that appellant had executed the subcontract work for Two lane ROB at Chainage 90+ 733 at Degana. It is also seen that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Dineshchandra R Infracon Private Limited vide order passed in ITA no 369/Ahd/2019 and 414/Ahd/2018 has deleted the bogus expenses to the tune of Rs. 16,98,19,305/- added by the jurisdictional AO. From the perusal of the above order, it is evident that the additions regarding bogus subcontract expenses in the case of DRAIPL which were the only basis for reopening the case of assessee, stood dele