, , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण इंदौर (cid:586)ायपीठ इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 188/Ind/2024 (AYs: 2012-13)

Shri Vimal Todi, बनाम/ Additional Commissioner

501, Darshan Residency, of Income-tax, Vs.

104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

PAN: AFYPT0164P Assessee by Shri Venus Rawka, CA & AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 29.12.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of penalty-order dated 28.03.2019 passed by Addl. CIT (Central), Indore u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment-year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed present appeal.

2. This is a re-called matter. Originally, the present of assessee, being the same ITA No. 188/Ind/2024 for AY 2012-13, was decided by learned co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Indore alongwith other two appeals, being ITA No. 189/Ind/2024 for AY 2013-14 & ITA No. 190/Ind/2024 for AY 2014-15, vide a consolidated Order dated 25.10.2024 [“earlier order dated 25.10.2024”] in favour of assessee. Subsequently, the revenue filed M/A No. 19/Ind/2025 for AY 2012-13, which came to be disposed of byITAT’s Order dated 02.09.2025 wherein the ITAT passed following order re-calling aforesaid earlier order dated 25.10.2024 to the extent it related to AY 2012-

13:

“4. Thereafter, learned Representatives of both sides made their vehement submissions on the issued raised in M/A. After deliberations, it emerged that by means of impugned order, the ITAT has quashed penalty-order dated 29.12.2023 passed by AO as time-barred taking into account a common fact for three AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 that the AO made reference to Competent Officer for imposition of penalty on 13.06.2018 [Para 8(ii) of ITAT’s order]. However, the factual position for AY 2012-13 under consideration was different in as much as the original reference dated 13.06.2018 was withdrawn because the AY 2011-12 was mistakenly referred therein and a new reference dated 25.03.2019 for correct AY 2012-13 was made by AO to the CompetentOfficer.Ld. DR forrevenue/applicantsubmitted thatthis correct fact might not have been placed before ITAT since there was a common hearing of three years and in any case, there is an apparent mistake in the order of ITAT due to non-consideration of correct fact rendering the impugned order fit for rectification u/s 254(2). Hence, the order passed by ITAT may be re-called. On a careful consideration, we find that there is an apparent mistake in the impugned order as narrated. Therefore, we re-call the order of ITAT for AY 2012-13. The registry is direct to re-list the original appeal being ITA No. 188/Ind/2024 for AY 2012-13 for a fresh hearing before regular bench after giving proper notices to parties. Accordingly, this M/A is allowed.”

Accordingly, the present appeal being ITA No. 188/Ind/2024 has again come up before this bench for hearing.

3. The assessee has raised following grounds:

“1. That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and the facts of this case and upheld the penalty levied by Assessing Officer u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 50,00,000/- without considering full facts and legal position. The penalty levied therefore is totally wrongand illegalon the facts ofthe case.

2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and the facts ofthe case by confirming the penalty u/s 271D despite the fact that impugned penalty order was barred by limitation u/s 275 ofIncome-taxAct, 1961.

3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and the facts of the case and failed to appreciate Explanatory Notes and Circular No. 387 dated 07/06/1984 issued by the CBDT.

4. That the appellant craves to leave, add, alter or amend any of the ground atorbefore hearing.”

4. The primary is