RATNAKUMARI NAMA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 764/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 October 2026AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was unsustainable because it was a non-speaking order. The CIT(A) had failed to provide any independent reasoning or discuss the merits of the penalty levied by the AO. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal against the quantum addition was still pending before the Ld. CIT(A), and the outcome of that appeal would significantly influence the validity of the penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to its file. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide the assessee's appeal concerning the penalty along with the pending quantum appeal, by way of a speaking order, in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ratnakumari Nama, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 28/01/2026. This order pertained to the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The assessee was aggrieved by the confirmation of a penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking, failing to discuss the merits of the case or the AO's justification for the penalty. Furthermore, the assessee's appeal contesting the quantum addition was also pending before the CIT(A), and its outcome would impact the penalty's validity.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 28/01/2026, confirming the penalty levied under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in law, given that it is a non-speaking order and the quantum appeal is pending. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking, as it merely confirmed the AO's reasons without independent discussion. The assessee also submitted that the outcome of the pending appeal concerning the quantum addition would have a bearing on the validity of the penalty, and therefore, the CIT(A) should have considered both together. The assessee relied on the principle that a penalty's validity is often linked to the underlying addition. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

Before: SANJAY GARG & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 28/01/2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as I

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 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →