RAJENDRA,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 5(2)(2), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1217/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2026AY 2015-163 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 assessee's quantum appeal is still pending before the CIT(A), the penalty appeal, being consequential, should also follow suit. Therefore, the penalty appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2015-16. Both lower authorities found the assessee to have concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty appeal should be decided when the underlying quantum appeal is still pending. The consequential nature of the penalty appeal.

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: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: CA Ms. Sunidhi Sharma, Adv
Hearing: 14.05.2026Pronounced: 14.05.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056948539(1), dated 10.10.2023 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.1217/Del/2026

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 33 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have held the assessee to have concealed as well as furnished inaccurate particulars of his taxable income. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 26.06.2018 levied the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.32,63,411/- which has been upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. It further transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s quantum appeal is stated to be pending before the CIT(A). That being the clinching factual position, we are of the considered view that the assessee’s instant penalty appeal also deserves to follow suit in very terms being consequential in nature. Ordered accordingly. All other remaining issues are left open at this stage. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th May, 2026

2 | P a g e

ITA No.1217/Del/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25th May, 2026. RK/- 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 →