SAURAV JINDAL,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1, BARNALA

ITA 671/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 October 2026AY 2016-20173 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessments for both AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, from which the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) emanated, have been remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 08.09.2025, the very foundation of these penalties no longer survives. Consequently, both the penalties also stand restored back to the Ld. AO. The AO is directed to adjudicate the penalties afresh in light of the outcome of the quantum additions that will be made after the fresh assessment proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, meaning the Tribunal did not decide the merits of the penalty but restored them to the AO for fresh consideration based on the revised quantum assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Saurav Jindal, has filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 670/CHANDI/2026 and 671/CHANDI/2026) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively. These appeals challenge separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] on 28.01.2026. The orders confirmed penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 34,70,930 for AY 2015-16 and Rs. 73,50,970 for AY 2016-17. The procedural history reveals that the quantum assessments, which formed the basis for these penalties, were remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 08.09.2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are sustainable when the underlying quantum assessments have been remanded back to the Assessing Officer. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their Learned Authorized Representative (AR), argued that since the quantum assessments, which are the foundation for the penalties, have been set aside and remanded, the penalties themselves cannot survive. The basis for levying the penalties has been nullified by the remand order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR), did not record any specific arguments against the assessee's contention regarding the sustainability of penalties post-remand of quantum assessments. The judgment notes that the undisputed position emerging during the hearing was that the quantum assessments were remanded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Pronounced: 01.10.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.670/CHANDI/2026
ITA No.671/CHANDI/2026

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

RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Year (AYs) 2015-16 and 2016-17 arises out of separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] passed on 28.01.2026 confirming

penalties u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.34,70,930 (AY 2015-16) & Rs.73,50,970 (AY 2016-17).

2.

During he

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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →