LAXMI NARAYAN MITTAL,UTTARAKHAND vs. ITO, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7629/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2026AY 2016-173 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 the penalty for concealment of income was not sustainable on the grounds of estimation of GP and unsubstantiated material from loose sheets. The penalty was accordingly deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on estimated GP on alleged unaccounted sales and an amount of Rs. 4.4 lakhs from loose sheets.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable on estimated additions and unsubstantiated material.

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: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Hearing: 21.05.2026Pronounced: 21.05.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi-26’s DIN and order No .ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1081817061(1), dated 16.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

ITA No.7629/Del/2025

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal herein, we note at the outset that he is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings in the Assessing Officer’s order dated 28.08.2024, levying section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 3,49,546/- which stands upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

That being the case, we sought to know the exact quantum addition(s) made in the assessee’s hands. We are fairly informed in light of the learned Assessing Officer’s penalty order that he had assessed/ rather estimated GP @ 1.05% to 3% on alleged unaccounted sales as well as Rs. 4.4 lakhs going by some loose sheets only which had not been substantiated although the same appears to have attained finality for want of appeal filed at his behest. We are of the considered view that the impugned section 271(1)(c) concealment penalty on both these issues i.e., estimation as well as unsubstantiated alleged incriminating material does not deserve to be sustained. The Revenue’s vehement submissions in

2 | P a g e

ITA No.7629/Del/2025 support thereof stand rejected in very terms. The impugned penalty is hereby deleted.

4.

This appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21. 05. 2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25.05.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

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 →