ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI, DELHI vs. KUNAL GABA, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8062/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 July 2026AY 2019-203 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the penalty was unsustainable in law as the AO had not recorded the required satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating proceedings under Section 271DA.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted a penalty imposed under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not recorded the necessary satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271DA was validly initiated without the AO recording satisfaction in the assessment order. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271DA,Section 269ST

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 15.07.2026Pronounced: 15.07.2026

1 . IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. No.8062/DEL/2025 (A.Y 2019-20) ACIT Kunal Gaba Central Circle- 25 Vs. H. No. 620, Old No.485, Delhi Pratap Mohalla, Rohtak-124001 Haryana Appellant Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT DR Respondent Sh. Akash Ojha, Advocate

Date of Hearing 15.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-31, Delhi for the A.Y. 2019-20. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

a. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the penalty made by the Addl.

2 . Commissioner of the Income Tax, competent Authority, without any legality and merit of the case,

b. The Ld. CIT(A) incorrectly held that the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction as required, despite clear evidence to the contrary, as proposal for initiation of penalty for violation of provision of section 269ST has been sent with recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer.

c. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

d. That the appellant craves to add, amend, after or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to the notice of the Bench that the ld. CIT(A) has given very clear finding in his appellate order while cancelling the penalty imposed u/s.271DA of the IT Act. He brought it to the notice of the Bench that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a very speaking order on this issue which is reproduced as under :-

“14. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271AAB of the Act at two places but there is no mention of penalty proceedings to be initiated u/s 271DA of the Act. No contravention of the provisions of section 269ST of the Act has been mentioned in the assessment order. 15. Upon careful consideration of the material available on record, it is seen that no satisfaction has been arrived at by the AO for initiating the said penalty in the assessment order. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (Supra), I am of the considered view that the penalty so imposed without the satisfaction of the AO recorded in the assessment order is not sustainable in law. I hold accordingly. Hence, the penalty so imposed by the Addl.CIT u/s 271DA of the Act is hereby cancelled.”

3 . 3. Per contra the Ld. DR has relied on the order of the AO.

4.

We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in the penalty order canceling the penalty imposed u/s.271DA of the Act. In our view the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) is very clear and needs no interference. Accordingly, the revenue’s appeal on this issue is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open Court on 15.07.2026.

.

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (KRINWANT SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBR Dated : 15/07/2026 *Neha Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 271DA

All 211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271DA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →