KOMAL KUMAR,SAMBHALHERA vs. AO, MUZFFARNAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was deleted, the penalty levied under section 270A(1)(d) did not survive. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under section 270A(1)(d) for the assessment year 2020-21. The quantum addition on which the penalty was based had already been deleted by the ITAT in a previous order.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 270A can be sustained when the underlying quantum addition has been deleted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITANo.8074/DEL/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Komal Kumar, vs. Assessment Officer, Sambhalhera, Jansath, Muzaffarnagar. Mufaffarnagar -251 314 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN: BMZPK6093F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sankalp Malik, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.03.2026 Date of Order : 04.06.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 30.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. In this appeal, assessee has challenged the sustenance of penalty levied under section 270A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’)
2 ITA No.8074/DEL/2025 amounting to Rs.10,000/-. 3. At the outset before us, ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the quantum addition in this case has been already deleted by ITAT vide order dated 27.01.2026 in ITA No.7482/Del/2025 for AY 2020-21 and a copy of the order is placed on record. Hence, this penalty u/s 271A(1)(d) levied does not survive. Ld. DR of the Revenue could not rebut this proposition. since quantum addition has been deleted, we delete the aforesaid penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of June, 2026.
Sd/- sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 04.06.2026 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI
More judgments on Section 270A
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, AnantapurITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026