MITHABHAI JOMABHAI RABARI,DEESA vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-1, PALANPUR

ITA 625/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 September 2026AY 2016-20173 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition for the same assessment year was previously remanded to the AO for proper verification. Consequently, the penalty levied becomes infructuous as the underlying addition is subject to further examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case and added Rs. 40,79,785/- as income from other sources due to unexplained cash introduction in a firm. Subsequently, a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was remanded for further verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68,Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri R. Govindarajan

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Shangvi, A.R
For Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. D.R

PER R. GOVINDARAJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order dated 05-01- 2026 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC (in short, referred to as the CIT(A)) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as “the Act”) relating to Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “[1] The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was grievously erred in upholding the imposition Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 12,60,65/- made by the Ld. A.O. u/s. 68 by dismissing the appeal, is illegal and bad in law. Mithabhai Jomabhai Rabari, A.Y. 2016-17 The appellant submi

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 →