KAMALVIR SINGH, MALERKOTLA,MALERKOTLA vs. JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 SANGRUR, SANGRUR

ITA 812/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 October 2026AY 2015-20163 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while hearing the appeals, noted that it is a well-settled principle of law that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delays where gross negligence or deliberate inaction is not attributable to the assessee. Considering these principles, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the Ld. AO to frame a fresh assessment, with a specific instruction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The issue of penalty under section 271(1)(c) will be reconsidered in light of the outcome of the fresh quantum assessment. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kamalvir Singh, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 811/Chandi/2026 and 812/Chandi/2026) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeals challenge orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). ITA No. 811/Chandi/2026 pertains to a quantum assessment order passed under sections 144 read with 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer (AO) on February 16, 2024, wherein an aggregate addition of Rs. 65,98,050 was made under sections 69 and 69A. ITA No. 812/Chandi/2026 challenges the confirmation of a penalty of Rs. 20,38,797 under section 271(1)(c) consequential to the quantum assessment. The CIT(A) had dismissed the quantum appeal on grounds of delay without considering the assessee's explanation, and consequently confirmed the penalty. The assessee is aggrieved by these orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to decide the quantum assessment on merits, considering the assessee's submission that the delay was unintentional and due to bona fide reasons, and that the assessee can substantiate its case. Assessee's Contention: The delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was unintentional and due to bona fide reasons. The assessee is in a position to substantiate its case and therefore, the quantum assessment should be decided on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. Sr. DR opposed the assessee's plea for condoning the delay and deciding the case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

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

RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA (Judicial Member)

1.

These two inter-connected appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. CIT(A)']. The appeal ITA

No.811/Chandi/2026 is against quantum assessment order passed u/s r.w.s. 144 r.w.

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →