SARDUL SINGH,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD-2(2), ROPAR, PUNJAB

PDF · subscribers
ITA 201/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 August 2026AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following the restoration of the quantum appeal. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed by the AO. The quantum appeal for the same assessment year had already been restored to the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the quantum addition is restored to the AO. Whether the penalty proceedings were initiated and imposed vaguely without specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “बी” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE �ी लिलत कुमार, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी िवजय वमा� , लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. VIJAY VARMA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 201 /Chd/ 2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sardul Singh बनाम The ITO Cahklan, Rupnagar, Punjab-140102 Ward -2(2), Ropar �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CRUPS4845L अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04/08/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 06/08/2026 आदेश/Order PER VIJAY VARMA, A.M: This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the order of the Ld. CIT/ NFAC Delhi dt. 14/01/2026 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 in appeal No. NFAC/2015- 16/10463561.

2.

In this appeal the appellant has raised the following grounds:

1.

That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), Ludhiana in Appeal No. CIT (A), NFAC/2015-16/10463561 has erred in passing order dtd. 14.01.2026 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.20,02,835/ on addition of alleged unexplained money u/s 69A. 3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of levying penalty of Rs. 20,02,835/ u/s 271(1)(c) even when the initiation of penalty as also its imposition is completely vague without specification of limb of s. 271(1)(c) for which the same has been initiated and also finally imposed. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the impugned penalty order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) and then confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have

2 been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.

3.

Since the quantum appeal in ITA No. 200/CHD/2016 for A.Y. 2016-17 has already been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer by this Bench vide order dt. 05/08/2026 , therefore, the present penalty appeal is also restored to AO for fresh adjudication.

4.

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

Order pronounced on 06/08/2026

Sd/- Sd/- लिलत कुमार िवजय वमा� (LALIET KUMAR) (VIJAY VARMA) �ाियक सद� /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 3. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 6.

BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KENDRIYA SADAN, SECTOR-9A CHANDIGARH

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 →