THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. DR. VANDANA U. PATEL, BARODA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were remitted, the penalty proceedings should also be remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. This was to be done in light of the findings in the related quantum proceedings.
What were the facts?
The appeals and cross objections concerned penalties under section 271(1)(c) related to additions made for undisclosed investments and disbursements from a private discretionary trust. The quantum additions themselves had been remitted to the Assessing Officer.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether penalty proceedings could be sustained when the underlying quantum additions were being re-examined. The Tribunal considered the interconnectedness of quantum and penalty proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Heard together (5 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
All the five appeals and all the three cross objections deal with a common issue with respect to penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of quantum additions relating to the investments in, and disbursements from, a undisclosed private discretionary trust by the name of Athena Trust settled by Dr A T Patel in favour of the family members.
Vide our order of even date, we have remitted the matter regarding taxability of the related quantum additions to the file of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to remit these penalty proceedings to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in the light of the findings in the related quantum proceedings de novo. Ordered accordingly.
ITA No. 2988,89 and 90/Ahd/2016 and the related COs Assessment year: 2013-14 and 3363/Ahd/16 Assessment year: 2008-09 and 2012-13 Page 4 of 4
In the result, all the five appeals and all the three cross objections are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on the 31st day of July, 2019.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026