DIAMOND TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2343/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 June 2026AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was set aside for de novo assessment, the penalty appeal also deserves to be allowed. The Assessing Officer is at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after the de-novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order confirmed by the CIT(A). The quantum appeal for the same assessment year was previously restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty proceedings can survive when the underlying assessment order is set aside for de novo assessment.

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, “A” BENCH,

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed, AR
For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 17.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.2343/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Diamond Tradecom Private Vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolkata Limited Shop No.1, Shiv Ganga CHS Limited, Ram Kuwar Thakur Road Dahisar (East), Mumbai-400068 [PAN: AACCD8131A] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri Subhash Chhajed, AR Respondent by : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 15.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 20.08.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2009-10, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of penalty passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.09.2015.

ITA No.2343/KOL/2025 Diamond Tradecom Private Limited; A.Y: 2009-10 2. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, in the quantum Appeal in ITA No.1389/Kol/2023, vide order of the Tribunal dated 29.09.2025, the issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, therefore, submitted that the present Appeal filed by the Assessee challenging the parallel penalty proceedings may be allowed.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Lower Authorities and sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. Considering the fact that, in the quantum Appeal, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Assessment Order and directed the Assessing Officer to frame de novo assessment, the present Appeal filed by the Assessee challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty order deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the order impugned is hereby set aside. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if required after framing the de-novo assessment as directed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1389/Kol/2023.

ITA No.2343/KOL/2025 Diamond Tradecom Private Limited; A.Y: 2009-10 6. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 17.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17.06.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

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 →