ARVIND,REWARI vs. ITO WARD-2 (JAO), REWARI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 2474/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Arvind, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o Anu Jain & Company, CAs, Ward-2(JAO), 272-R, First Floor, Near Palika Rewari, Complex, Model Town, Rewari, Haryana-123401 Haryana-123401 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ARCPK6469J Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 09.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 09.07.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.02.2026 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)wherein,appeal has been dismissed on account of non- prosecution.

2 ITA No. 2474/Del/2026 Arvind proceedings are premature and consequential in nature, but Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering this fact. It was further submitted that the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law as the notice issued u/s. 274 does not clearly specify the charge, i.e., whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, thereby rendering the penalty proceedings void ab initio. In view of above, it was requested that impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh, by passing a speaking order, keeping in view the aforesaid factual matrix in mind.

3 ITA No. 2474/Del/2026 Arvind AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find considerable cogency in the contention of the ld. AR that no effective opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee due to the fact that notices were issued to the assessee on the incorrect e-mail ID. Even otherwise, it is noted that assessee informed the ld. CIT(A) that since quantum appeal is pending before the ITAT, thus, he requested to keep it in abeyance, but ld. CIT(A) did not consider this fact and confirmed the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is also a fact that the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) does not clearly specify the charge, i.e., whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual background and in the larger interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as per law, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the issues, afresh after considering all the submissions, evidences and judicial precedents applicable on the subject, after affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment and

4 ITA No. 2474/Del/2026 Arvind substantiate his case before the ld. CIT(A) by filing the requisite submissions, documents and evidences, if so desired.