SUDARSHAN SHARDA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT-22(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9168/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 June 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by a previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 270A. The penalty was based on an addition made during the assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 270A can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by a higher authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 56(2)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody
For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, SR. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 9168/Mum./2025 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sudarshan Sharda, 1303, 13th Floor Lodha Supremus, DR E Moses Road Worli, Mumbai - 400013 ……………. Appellant PAN : AJBPS2216E v/s A/DCIT – 22(1), Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012 ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Satish R. Mody Revenue by : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, SR. DR

Date of Hearing – 09/06/2026 Date of Order – 19/06/2026

O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 20.11.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 in sustaining the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act.

2 ITA No.9168/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19)

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, referring to the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 7227/Mum/2025 dated 05.06.2026, submitted that the addition made in the assessment proceedings which formed the basis for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act, was deleted by the Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, specifically referring to paragraph 6 of the Tribunal's order, submitted that the addition which was made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act was deleted by the Tribunal. Ld. Counsel submitted that since the quantum addition was deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty levied u/s 270A do not survive.

3.

Ld. DR fairly submitted that the addition has been deleted by the Tribunal.

4.

Considering the rival submissions and on perusing the orders of the authorities below and the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 7227/Mum/2025 dated 05.06.2026, we find that the addition which was made u/s 56(2)(x) while completing the assessment has been deleted by the Tribunal. Consequently, the penalty levied on such addition has no legs to stand. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 270A for the assessment

3 ITA No.9168/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19)

year 2018-19. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

5.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/06/2026

- Sd/- Sd/- CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED: 19/06/2026 Prabhat

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →