VINOD SAWALDAS DHINGRA,NAGPUR vs. ACIT-C-C-2(2), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

ITA 226/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 June 2026AY 2020-20216 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 270A was unsustainable as it was based on an estimated profit after the quantum addition was already reduced by the Tribunal. For section 271DA, the Tribunal found that the assessment order lacked the necessary satisfaction for levying the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against penalty orders under sections 270A and 271DA. The penalty under section 270A was based on estimated profit from cash transactions, while the penalty under section 271DA was levied without a clear satisfaction of contravention of section 269ST in the assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 270A is sustainable when based on estimated profit after quantum addition reduction, and whether penalty under section 271DA can be levied without explicit satisfaction of contravention of section 269ST in the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 271DA,Section 269ST

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Moriyani, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Hearing: 11.06.2026Pronounced: 16.06.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

These appeals filed by the same assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), both dated 24/02/2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which are emanating from separate penalty orders dated 10.11.2023 passed u/s.

ITA Nos. 225 & 226/NAG/2026 (Vinod Sawaldas Dhingra) 270A of the Act and dated 29.09.2023 passed u/s. 271DA of the Act respectively, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. On hearing both the sides and after perusal of the material available on record, we find that first short controversy involved is whether the levy of penalty u/s. 270A o

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →