Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises from penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee remained ex-parte during the hearing. The departmental representative argued that the lower authorities rightly held the assessee to have concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal of the assessee, ITA No. 308/Del/2025, was still pending and yet to attain finality. Considering this factual position, the Tribunal restored the penalty appeal back to the Assessing Officer to await the final outcome of the quantum appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty appeal can be decided when the quantum appeal on the merits of the income is still pending finality.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. ITO, Smt. Renu Tyagi, Tower-G, Flat 001, Ward-3(5), Bestech Park View Ananda, Gurgaon Sector-81, Gurgaon, Haryana PAN: ASXPK6470H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.06.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070458893(1), dated 19.11.2024 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly held the assessee to have concealed as well as furnished inaccurate particulars of her taxable income; in the Assessing Officer’s order dated 01.06.2018 thereby levying the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.31,56,880/- and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
It is in this factual backdrop that we sought to verify the final outcome of the corresponding quantum proceedings in the assessee’s case. It transpires that the assessee’s quantum appeal pending before this tribunal is yet to attain finality. That being the clinching factual position, we are of the considered view that the assessee’s instant penalty appeal deserves to be restored back to the learned Assessing Officer so as to wait for final outcome of her above quantum appeal in the larger interest of justice. We order accordingly. All other remaining issues on merits are left open to be decided at the appropriate stage in accordance with law.