VIDUSHI TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 26(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 856/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2026AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

Since the quantum addition order has been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalty based on that addition is not sustainable at this stage. Therefore, the matter is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges a penalty order confirmed by the CIT(A) based on a quantum addition. The quantum addition itself was previously confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issue is whether a penalty can be sustained when the underlying quantum addition, on which the penalty is based, has been set aside and restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Hearing: 20.05.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 856/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Vidushi Tayal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 37, Kalkaji Rampuri, Ward-26(3), New Delhi-110019 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABGPT5656C Assessee by: Sh. Saurabh Tandon, CA Revenue by: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 20.05.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.01.2026 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2009- 10 wherein, the penalty order dated 19.03.2020 passed u/s 271(1)(c) has been confirmed.

2.

At the threshold, it is noticed that the penalty in dispute has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) primarily on the basis of quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 03.11.2025. However, during the course of hearing, the ld. AR brought to our notice that against the very quantum appellate order dated 03.11.2025, the assessee preferred an appeal

2 ITA No. 856/Del/2026 Vidhushi Tayal

before this Tribunal in ITA No. 855/Del/2026 and the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi vide its order dated 20.05.2026 has restored the quantum appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Since the quantum addition has been restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, thus the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law at this juncture, therefore, the impugned order dated 6.1.2026 is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 02/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

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 →