ASHOKKUMAR VISHAMBARDAYAL SANGHI,MUMBAI vs. WARD 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3602/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 August 2026AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the findings of the Coordinate Bench in the quantum proceedings when levying the penalty. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty order was passed before the decision in the quantum proceedings by a Coordinate Bench.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the quantum assessment order, which forms the basis for the penalty, was decided subsequently and not considered by the AO. Also, the AO's failure to specify the exact charge in the show-cause notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH; MUMBAI

Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH; MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. DEBJANI MITRANEOGY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3602/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Ashokkumar Vishambardayal Income Tax Officer, Ward Sanghi 2(3)(1), Mumbai A1701, Lalni Grandeur, Ridhi vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai, Garden, Film City Road, Maharashtra, 400020. Mumbai, Malad East, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400097.

PAN: AAEPS7591Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ayush Chhajed For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 04.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.08.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 02.03.2026, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, wherein he has sustained the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), vide order dated 09.09.2021.

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the matter in the quantum proceedings has since been decided by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 06.11.2022 in ITA No. 7952/Mum/2022,

ITA No. 3602/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2010-11 Ashokkumar Vishambardayal Sanghi wherein the Bench while disposing off the grounds of appeal has partly allowed the ground no. 3, ground no. 4 has been dismissed, and ground no. 5 has been allowed for statistical purposes and given that the penalty order has been passed prior to the passing of the order in the quantum proceedings by the Coordinate Bench, the Assessing Officer has not taken into consideration the findings of the Coordinate Bench in the quantum proceedings. Further, reference was drawn to the show-cause notice issued u/s. 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer has not specified the specific charge against the assessee and reliance was placed on various authorities on this subject.

3.

The ld. DR has been heard, who has relied on the order passed by the lower authorities. At the same time, it was fairly submitted that the matter in the quantum proceedings has been subsequently decided by the Coordinate Bench and the findings therein have not been taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer while levying the penalty.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the matter in the quantum proceedings has been disposed off by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 26.09.2022, wherein ground no. 3 has been partly allowed for statistical purposes, ground no. 4 has been dismissed, and ground no. 5 has been allowed for statistical purposes. In view of the same, we find that it would be appropriate that the matter relating to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to take into consideration the findings of the Coordinate Bench in the quantum proceedings. In the result, we set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.

5.

The contentions relating to absence of specific charge in the show- cause notice are left open and has not been adjudicated upon, in view of the fact that the matter has been set aside to the file of the Assessing

ITA No. 3602/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2010-11 Ashokkumar Vishambardayal Sanghi Officer, and the assessee would be at liberty to raise the same, if so advised.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- DEBJANI MITRANEOGY VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated: 20.08.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS

Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file

By Order

Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai

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 →