KAILASH MITTAL,DELHI vs. ACIT CC-20, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3928/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 August 2026AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that penalty for concealment cannot be imposed if there is no concealed income. Since the addition was deleted by the CIT(A) and accepted by the AO, the penalty was unwarranted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on an addition made to the assessee's income. However, the CIT(A) had previously deleted this addition. The Assessing Officer subsequently gave effect to the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed when the underlying addition has been deleted by the appellate authority and accepted by the Assessing Officer.

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 BENCHES, ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

Pronounced: 30.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 3928/DEL/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2012-13) KAILASH MITTAL ACIT CC-20 A-23/1, LAWRENCE ROAD, NEW DELHI-, DELHI INDUSTRIAL AREA, KESHAV Vs. PURAM, NORTH WEST DELHI, NEW DELHI-110035 अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAIPM8100H

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv (VC) ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Ms. Ritu Sharma, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 30.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 30.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi, dated 24.02.2026, arising out penalty order, dated 29.10.2025 passed under section u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA 3928/DEL/2026 KAILASH MITTAL

2.

The only issue emanating from the above appeal is regarding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer and imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and its confirmation by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 29.10.2025, whereby the ld. Assessing Officer has imposed a penalty of Rs.1,88,116/- in respect of an addition of Rs.6,08,787/-. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that impugned imposition of penalty is totally unwarranted. Our attention was invited to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 dated 31.03.2025, it was submitted that through the impugned order, vide para- 5.7 on page-9, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel further drew our attention to an appeal effect giving order dated 22.05.2025 of Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 250 r.w.s. 153A/263, whereby, the ld. Assessing Officer gave an appeal effect, so as to reduce the incidence of taxation. It is the case of the assessee that as there was no concealment of tax in its case, the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) dated 29.10.2025 was unwarranted. 3. The ld. DR place reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities. 4. Heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on record. 5. We have noted the correctness of the fact from the orders preferred by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is trite law that no penalty for concealment can be imposed in a case, if there is absence of any concealed income. In the present case, the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer was deleted by ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer had accepted the same by passing an appeal effect

Page 2 of 3

ITA 3928/DEL/2026 KAILASH MITTAL

giving order. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and quash the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 29.10.2025, whereby the ld. Assessing Officer has imposed a penalty of Rs.1,88,116/-. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [VIKAS AWASTHY] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07.08.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 3 of 3

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 →