TEENA GANDHI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2847/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 September 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was pending before the CIT(A) and that the orders of the authorities below were passed in a one-sided manner. It was deemed appropriate to hear the quantum and penalty matters together.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income despite purchasing immovable property and receiving salary. The AO added unexplained investment in property and cash deposits as income and levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty proceedings should be adjudicated along with the pending quantum appeal before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Sharma, CA
For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.09.2026

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 23.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.

1.1 In this case, the AO has levied a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.18,75,630/- on the ground that the assessee had purchased immovable property and also received salary during the year under consideration. However, the assessee had not filed any return of income. Thereafter, the Ld. AO added Rs.55,00,000/- as unexplained investment in property and Rs.5,70,000/- as cash deposit in the bank which was not explained. 1

ITA No.2847/DEL/2026 TEENA GANDHI 1.2 The assessee approached the CIT(A) where through a very cryptic order, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.

1.3 The assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the impugned action.

2.

On the last date of hearing, the Ld. AR made a statement at the Bar that the quantum matter was pending before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore either the present proceedings may be kept in abeyance or they should be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication along with the quantum matter.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

3.

We have perused the documents before us and have heard both the sides. A perusal of the orders of the authorities below reveals that such orders have been passed in one-sides manner. Also, once it is known that the quantum matter is pending before the First Appellate Authority then it would be in the fitness of things that the quantum and penalty should be heard together. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication along with the quantum matter.

ITA No.2847/DEL/2026 TEENA GANDHI 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:18.09.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

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 →