VIKRAM BAKSHI,NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL (NFAC), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 384/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 2026AY 2021-225 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 addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication by a coordinate bench, the penalty was not sustainable. The impugned penalty order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 270A for alleged misrepresentation of facts leading to excess Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) claim. The penalty was imposed by the CIT(A) ex-parte after the assessee did not file a separate reply to the show-cause notice.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the sustainability of the penalty under Section 270A when the underlying quantum addition was subject to fresh adjudication. Another issue involved the CIT(A)'s procedure in imposing the penalty and disregarding the assessee's submissions regarding the pending quantum appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 275,Section 54,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 08.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 384/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Vikram Bakshi, Vs CIT(A)/NFAC 157, Golf Links, Lodhi Road, H.O. Delhi Kasturba Nagar, New Delhi-110003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AENPB4926R Assessee by: Sh. Anil Kumar, CA Revenue by: Sh. Om Prakash, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 08.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 08.07.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.05.2024 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2021-22 wherein, the penalty order dated 28.11.2024 is passed u/s 270A during the appellate proceedings by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi on the ground that the appellant has misrepresented facts while calculating LTCG in sale of two immovable properties and that lead to claim of excess deduction of LTCG and also under reporting of his total income in the return of income filed. Hence, a separate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act was initiated during the course of appellate proceedings. A show-cause notice was issued and

2 ITA No. 384/Del/2025 Vikram Bakshi in response to said show-cause notice dated 07.05.2024, the appellant submitted reply dated 31.05.2024 stating that he had filed appeal against the quantum order before the Hon’ble ITAT. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the appellant did not file any separate written submission in response to the show-cause notice for penalty u/s 270A of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the penalty ex-parte.

2.

Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the assessee filed appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1)That the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal] is bad in law and on the facts of the case. 2] That the assessee has already preferred an appeal before the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi against the quantum enhancement of Capital Gains to Rs. 10,05,82,109/- against declared Capital Gains of Rs. 5,82,92,758/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 54 for Rs. 5,82,92,758/-. 3] That the assessee furnished the details of the quantum appeal filed before the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi vide response dated 04.06.2024, 16.07.2024 & 28.10.2024 and requested for the penalty proceedings to be kept in abeyance till the outcome of the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has disregarded the same contrary to the provisions laid down u/s 275(l)(a) of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 4] That the Ld. CIT (A) has disregarded the facts on record and has erroneously given credit for the indexed cost of acquisition of the capital asset for Rs. 289,17,891/- instead of Rs. 6,86,65,242/- claimed by the assessee, as per details given below: -

3 ITA No. 384/Del/2025 Vikram Bakshi S.No. Purchase Date Index Ratio Cost (in Rs.) Index Cost

a] 19.10.2013 301/220 84,72,000/- 1,15,91,236/- b) 19.10.2013 301/220 1,26,64,000/- 1,73,26,655/- 2,89,17,891/ - 01.04.2001 301/100 1,32,05,100/- 3,97,47,351/- Total 6,86,65,242/ - 5] That the net sale consideration of the properties has been taken as Rs. 12,95,00,000/- instead of Rs.12,69,58,000/- as per details given below: - Sale Consideration 12,95,00,000/- Less: Commission & Transfer Expenses 25,42,000/- Net Sale Consideration 12,69,58,000/-

6]That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961 amounting to Rs.5,82,92,758/- on account of investment made in the purchase of house property on 09.04.2021 amounting to Rs.7,03,00,000/- (including Rs.53,00,000/- for stamp paper and registration expenses). 7) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in assessment of the Long-Term Capital Gains which is correctly tabulated as under:- a) Net Sales consideration 12,69,58,000/- Less: Index Cost 6,86,65,242/- Capital Gain 5,82,92,758/- Deduction for Invt. u/s 54 Balance Taxable 7,03,00,000/- 5,82,92,758/- Nil 8) That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) being dissatisfied with the valuation report furnished by the assessee from a government approved valuer, without referring the same to departmental valuer, rejected the report. The said rejection by the Ld. CIT(A), which is not in compliance with the procedure laid down under the law, cannot be treated as concealment of income. It was at best only a difference of opinion in respect of the valuation of property in question. 9)That the imposition of penalty of Rs.3,40,01,804/-is unjust and arbitrary.”

4 ITA No. 384/Del/2025 Vikram Bakshi 3. At the threshold, it is noticed that the penalty in dispute has been initiated and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) primarily on the basis of quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 07.05.2024. However, during the course of hearing, the ld. AR brought to our notice that against the very quantum appellate order dated 07.05.2024, the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 2827/Del/2024 and the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi vide its order dated 20.05.2026 has restored the quantum appeal to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Since the quantum addition has been restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, thus the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law at this juncture, therefore, the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5 ITA No. 384/Del/2025 Vikram Bakshi 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 08/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 14/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →