VAANSH SHRMA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 55(5), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8153/Del/2015 [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Vaansh Sharma, Income Tax Officer, D-241, 2nd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Ward-55(5), Delhi-110095 Vs E-2, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 PAN:FHXPS8720N Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv.(VC) Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.05.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 08.10.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi,[hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of assessment order dated 27.06.2019 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA No.8153/Del/2025 section 271(1)(c) of the Act and thereby, raising a demand of Rs. 92,267/- and Ld. CIT(A) has erred while upholding the same. 2. That the Ld. AO has erred while imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars without there being any addition in the course of assessment proceeding and the order of Ld. CIT(A) suffers from fundamental fallacy while upholding the finding of Assessing Officer. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts by imposing the penalty on difference of presentation of figures by the assessee in the Income Tax Return and Tax Audit Report as the penalty has been imposed on difference of opinion between the Ld. AO and the appellant on presentation of figures and hence, in such case the penalty cannot be levied for the concealment of income or furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income and Ld. CIT(A) has also erred while upholding the same. 4. That the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has erred while returning the findings of furnishing of inaccurate particulars as it is contrary to the settled principle that disclosure in tax audit report constitutes full disclosure of material facts. 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in law as the penalty cannot be imposed when the statutory requirement of "concealment" or "inaccurate particulars" is not established with regard to material elements that affect the taxable income and Ld. CIT(A) has erred while upholding the finding of Assessing Officer. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred while applying section 28, explanation 2 of the Act to uphold the finding of Ld. AO which is overly technical and not consistent with the legislative intent. 3. The only issue seminal to the present appeal is regarding the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty imposed upon the assessee of Rs.92,267/- is totally untenable. It was submitted that no addition has been made in the assessment order. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has argued that the Return of Income of Rs.2,60,700/- was accepted vide order under section 143(3) dated 21.12.2018. It was argued that in absence of any concealed income indicated in the order, no case of imposition of penalty under section Page | 2

ITA No.8153/Del/2025 271(1)(c) was made out. It was accordingly requested that penalty order be quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Page | 3

ITA No.8153/Del/2025 Dated:.15.05.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi