SURESH TURYAMAL JASWANI,AKOLA vs. ITO WARD-2, AKOLA

ITA 171/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 October 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had provided opportunities and issued notices, the assessee's non-compliance could stem from various reasons, especially considering the ground that the ITAT had set aside the order in the quantum appeal. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a directive for adequate opportunity to be provided to the assessee and for the assessee to cooperate for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Suresh Turyamal Jaswani, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, concerning a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) and an order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 due to the assessee claiming the cost of acquisition for a plot sale without documentary evidence. The AO determined that the plot was held for less than three years, making the gain short-term capital gain. The AO added Rs. 32,53,000 as short-term capital gain under Section 111A and Rs. 3,27,485 as business income, assessing total income at Rs. 35,80,485. Subsequently, a penalty of Rs. 7,93,948 was levied under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, dismissing the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs. 7,93,948/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the assessee's grounds of appeal? 2. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not providing a proper opportunity to the appellant, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not appreciating that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had set aside the CIT(A)'s order in the quantum appeal, which might impact the penalty proceedings? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the penalty, failed to provide adequate opportunity, and did not consider the ITAT's order in the quantum appeal. The assessee also reserved the right to urge additional grounds. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Sr. DR, submitted that the CIT(A) had provided adequate opportunities and issued notices, but the assessee failed to comply. The CIT(A) therefore proceeded ex-parte, confirming the AO's action.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 111A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Hearing: 07.10.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/sec. 271(1)(c) and u/sec250 of the Act.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs. 7,93,948/-.

2.

Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not giving proper opportunity to the appellant.

3.

Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not appreciating or the fct that the Hon'ble ITAT has set aside the CIT(A)’s order passed by CIT(A) in the file of CIT(A) in quantum appeal.

4.

Appellant craves to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing, if necessary.”

ITA.No.171/NAG/202

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 →