BHANU PRATAP SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. AO, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1551/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2026AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the penalty proceedings to the file of the NFAC for denovo adjudication. The NFAC was directed to provide a clear finding on concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars before levying any penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT concerns a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The quantum proceedings for the relevant assessment year were restored to the NFAC for denovo adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was justified, given that the quantum appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Goel, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03/06/2026Pronounced: 30/06/2026

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1551/Del/20026 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bhanu Pratap Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1065, Sector-3, HIG Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad Duplex Chetak Block, Vasundhara Ghaziabad, (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AMNPS7316N Assessee by : Ms. Pooja Goel, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/06/2026 Date of pronouncement 30/06/2026

O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.1551/Del/2026 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 28.01.2026 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 18.03.2020 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward- 1(5), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2.

The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. the ld AR before us at the outset placed on record the copy of the Tribunal order in the quantum proceedings for AY 2012-13 in ITA No.

ITA No. 1551/Del/20026 Bhanu Pratap Singh

711/Del/2026 dated 08.05.2026 wherein, the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of ld NFAC for denovo adjudication. Since, the quantum proceedings are set aside to the file of the ld NFAC, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore the penalty proceedings also to the file of ld NFAC. The ld NFAC is directed to decide the levy of penalty, if it is found that assessee had either concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. A clear finding to this effect need to be given by the ld NFAC before resorting to levy of penalty. With these observations, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical 4. purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2026.

-Sd/- -Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30/06/2026 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi

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 →