What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the Assessing Officer (AO) to be decided along with the quantum appeal. This was done because the quantum appeal had been restored by the ITAT.

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed by the CIT(A) for delay. The ITAT had previously restored the quantum appeal to the AO for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty appeal should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication when the related quantum appeal has been restored by the ITAT.

Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik vs ITO | ITAT Ahmedabad 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.R, Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR

For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR

Pronounced: 24/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 204/Ahd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Pragnaben Umeshbhai Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(1), Yagnik Vs. 118 Saket Raw House, B/H Ahmedabad Memnagar Gram Panchayat, Memnagar S.O., Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380052 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHPY1844P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.R. ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR 08/04/2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 24/04/2026 (आदेश)/ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM:

The present appeal in penalty proceeding has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 12.11.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16.

ITA No.204/Ahd/2026 [Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik vs. ITO] A.Y. 2015-16 - 2 – 2. At the outset itself, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal as non- maintainable on account of delay in filing of the same being not condoned. He contended that even in the quantum proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal by not condoning the delay, which had been restored back by the ITAT to the file of the AO for consideration afresh in its order passed in ITA No.2529/Ahd/2025, dated 25.02.2026. Copy of the order was placed before us. He requested, therefore, that even penalty matter be restored back to the AO to be decided alongwith the quantum appeal of the assessee.

Ld. DR fairly agreed with the same. In the light of the same, the appeal of the assessee is restored back to the file of the AO to be decided alongwith the quantum issue in the case of the assessee which has been restored back by the ITAT vide its order dated 25.02.2026.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order pronounced on 24/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 24/04/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2.

ITA No.204/Ahd/2026 [Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik vs. ITO] A.Y. 2015-16 - 3 – संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

PRAGNABEN UMESHBHAI YAGNIK,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments