SALESH TYAGI (DECEASED, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. SHALINI TYAGI, YAMUNA NAGAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR., YAMUNA NAGAR

ITA 177/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 October 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that considering the co-owner's case (Shri Sachin Tyagi) was remitted back by the Tribunal to the AO, the impugned order in the present case should also be set aside. The matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment. The Tribunal directed the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was consequential to the quantum assessment, and therefore, it was also restored back to the AO for re-adjudication in light of the outcome of the quantum assessment. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Salesh Tyagi, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal challenged the confirmation of a quantum addition and a consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on a best judgment basis under Section 144 read with Section 147, assessing Long-Term Capital Gains of Rs. 59.84 Lacs due to the assessee's lack of representation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the AO's action for similar reasons. The assessee is now in further appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the AO for de novo assessment, considering a similar case of a co-owner (Shri Sachin Tyagi) was remitted back by the Tribunal. (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they are a co-owner of the property with Shri Sachin Tyagi, whose similar assessment was remitted back by the Tribunal to the AO. They placed a copy of that Tribunal order on record. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.176/Chandi/2026
ITA No.177/Chandi/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 assails confirmation of quantum addition as well as consequential penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The quantum appeal ITA No.176/Chandi/2026

arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), N

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →