VIBHA PANDEY,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 99/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 August 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment order was set aside by the CIT(A) and a fresh assessment was made where the assessee's returned income was accepted without modification, the penalty levied based on the earlier order had no basis and was therefore set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened due to a discrepancy in the sale consideration of an immovable property. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment, determining a higher income and initiating penalty proceedings. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), which dismissed the appeal due to delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty levied when the underlying assessment order, on which the penalty was based, was subsequently set aside and a fresh assessment was made accepting the returned income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 50C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 10.08.2026

PER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.01.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017–18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. In this case, assessee filed original return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 as per provisions of section 139(1) of the Act on 31.03.2018, declaring total income of Rs.4,91,730/-. The case was reopened on the basis of information available with the ITBA Syste

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 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →