ANIL JINDAL,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the quantum additions, which formed the basis of the penalty, had been remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also remanded for a fresh decision after considering the outcome of the fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
Following a search operation, the Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained jewellery and cash. The assessee appealed the penalty imposed based on these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty proceedings can be sustained when the underlying additions are subject to fresh assessment. The validity of penalty in light of a remand order in the quantum appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY
PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the order dated 29/12/2018 in appeal No. 432/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2017018 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (“Ld. CIT(A)”) in the case of Anil Jindal (“the assessee”), for the assessment year 2013-14, assessee preferred this appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed its return of income on 23.07.2013 declaring an income of Rs.1,63,09,510/-. Based on a search and seizure operation on 09.05.2012, assessment u/s. 153B r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was completed at an income of Rs.2,23,14,890/-. In the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.56,55,380/- on account of unexplained jewellery and Rs.3,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash found during the course of search operation, which stood confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in appeal filed by the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAA of the Act and finding the replies of assessee not satisfactory, imposed a penalty of Rs.6,00,538/- on the basis of aforesaid additions sustained by the ld. CIT(A) in the quantum appeal. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which stood dismissed by the impugned order.
Assessee, therefore, preferred this appeal. Learned AR of the assessee, inter alia, submitted that the assessee came up in appeal No. 838/Del/2017 before the Tribunal challenging the sustenance of additions, on the basis of which the impugned penalty is imposed and the Tribunal by order dated 08.04.2021 remanded the matter back to the file of learned Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment order after giving opportunity to the assessee for placing supporting evidences. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned penalty cannot be sustained.
Learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below and submits that once the assessee failed to explain the jewellery and cash found during the search operation, the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference.
We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It is not in dispute that the issues pertaining to additions on the basis of which impugned penalty has been imposed, have been remanded back by the Tribunal in quantum appeal to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice to remand the present appeal pertaining to penalty, to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh decision on the penalty proceedings after considering the outcome of fresh assessment. Needless to say, assessee shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 153B
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- At&T Communication Services India Private… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 5593/DEL/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Aggarwal, Ambala vs DCIT/ACIT Cent-2, ChandigarhITA 793/CHANDI/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- DCIT- CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs Piramal Agastya Offices Private Limited…ITA 5227/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- DCIT- CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs Piramal Agastya Offices Private Limited…ITA 5226/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026