SHOBHA JHA,NOIDA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, LAKHISARAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2031/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 July 2026AY 2015-163 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 since the quantum appeal had been remanded back to the AO, there was no assessment against which the penalty appeal could survive. Therefore, the penalty appeal was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 215 days, which the CIT(A) found unsupported by cogent material. The appeal concerned a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) following an addition under Section 69A for unexplained fixed deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty appeal can survive when the underlying quantum addition has been remanded back to the AO. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without proper opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: CA Repondent by :
Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 10.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. No.2031/DEL/2026 (A.Y 2015-16) Shobha Jha AO C-303, ATS Greens -1 Sec-50, Vs. ITO, Court Area, Jamui Noida H.O. Gautam Buddha More, ITO Ward-2 (5) Nagar, Noida Lakhisarai, Bihar PAN No.AMZPJ4889K Lakhisarai (APPELLANT)

Appellant by: Sh. Ganesh Kanodia, CA Repondent by : Sh. Mahendra Singh, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 02.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2015-16. Grounds of appeal are as under :- 1. Delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned as the same was caused due to bona fide and sufficient reasons beyond the control of the assessee

1 | P a g e

2.

Appeal wrongfully dismissed in limine without affording proper opportunity and in violation of principles of natural justice 3. The addition of Rs. 23,00,000 made under section 69A by treating the fixed deposits as unexplained money is wholly unjustified, contrary to facts and law, based on surmises and conjectures, and liable to be deleted in full 4. PENALTY LEVIED WITHOUT RECORDING PROPER SATISFACTION AND WITHOUT ESTABLISHING CONTUMACIOUS DEFAULT”

2.

At the very outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. CITA) in limine as in his opinion the application for condonation of delay [ that there was a delay of 215 days filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)] was not supported by any cogent material.

3.

He further argued that the issue involved in this case is that it is an appeal against the penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act against the quantum addition of Rs.23,00,000/- made u/s.69A of the Act by treating the fixed deposit as unexplained money by the AO.

4.

The Ld. Counsel also informed the Bench that the quantum appeal has already been remanded back to the file of the AO, by the Hon’ble ITAT, therefore, there is no assessment as such on date against which this penalty appeal and penalty has been filed.

2 | P a g e

5.

Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).

6.

We have considered the findings given by the authorities below and the arguments of both the parties. We find that as on date there is no final assessment against the assessee for which the penalty has been imposed because the quantum appeal of the assessee has been allowed for statistical purpose and it has already remanded back to the file of the AO. Accordingly, the appeal on the issue of penalty in this case does not survive as there is no issue either before the Ld. CIT(A) or before the Tribunal. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 10 July, 2026.

.

Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (KRINWANT SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBR Dated : 10/07/2026 *Neha Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →