RAMESHBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, 3(3)(5),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1071/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 September 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty could not be sustained. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) confirmed by the CIT(A). The penalty was levied based on additions made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the additions forming its basis have been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 30/01/2026, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 23/09/2023, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) in confirming penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is against law, e

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →