MOHAMMAD AMIN,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA , GUNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 69/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 May 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the related quantum appeals were restored, the penalty appeals are consequential. Therefore, these penalty appeals are also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh orders.

What were the facts?

The appeals concern penalties imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18. The quantum appeals related to these penalties have been restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo orders.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271B should be sustained when the related quantum assessment is restored to the Assessing Officer. The consequential nature of penalty appeals in light of restored quantum appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 20.05.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 68 & 69/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Mohammad Amin, Ward No. 23, Vs. ITO, Guna, Aayakar Bhawan, Jaganpur, BG Road, Guna- Shivpuri-473001 473001 PAN : AWLPA9906E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Subhash Jain, CA Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR) Date of hearing 20.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 20.05.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

The facts and issues involved in both these appeals are almost identical, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, these appeals are being decided by this common order. The facts of ITA No. 68/Agr/2026 are only being narrated:- ITA 68/Agr/2024 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2014-15/10380941 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld CIT(A) has

ITA No.68&69/Agr/2026

confirmed the penalty of Rs. 1,32,852/-, vide penalty order dated 19.09.2022 passed u/s. 271B of the Act. 3. At the very outset, it is noticed that the quantum appeal No ITA 269/Agr/2024 has already been restored to the assessing officer for passing de novo order. This, being the consequential matter with respect to the quantum appeal, is also restored to the file of ld assessing officer for passing order a fresh in the light of the order likely to be passed in ITA No. 269/Agr/2024. This appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. ITA 69/Agr/2026 4. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2016-17/10380945 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, wherein ld CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty of Rs. 1,08,625/- imposed vide penalty order dated 19.09.2025 passed u/s. 271B of the Act. This matter relates to quantum appeal No. ITA 270/Agr/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18, which has been restored to the file of ld assessing officer for de novo order. This appeal also deserves to be restored to the file of ld assessing officer for passing order a fresh in the light of the order likely to be passed in ITA No. 270/Agr/2024. The appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.68&69/Agr/2026

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee viz. ITA No. 68 & 69/Agr/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on – 20.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 21.05.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →