CHANCHAL AGRAWAL,SAMBALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1),SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

ITA 428/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 October 2026AY 2016-172 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal of the assessee was still pending before the CIT(A) for adjudication, the present penalty appeal, which arises out of the said quantum appeal, should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal reasoned that it is appropriate to have the penalty appeal heard and decided along with the main quantum appeal to ensure a comprehensive and consistent decision. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, implying that the substantive adjudication would now take place at the CIT(A) level. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Tribunal's decision was procedural, leading to the restoration of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chanchal Agrawal, filed an appeal (ITA No. 428/CTK/2026) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, against an order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-2017. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and subsequently by the CIT(A). The assessee's authorized representatives (ARs) appeared before the Tribunal. The revenue was represented by the Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR). The core of the matter was that a quantum appeal related to the same assessment year was still pending before the CIT(A). The assessee requested that the current appeal be restored to the CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with the pending quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty appeal should be adjudicated by the ITAT or restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication along with the pending quantum appeal, considering the quantum appeal is still pending before the CIT(A)? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and the hierarchy of appeals). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the quantum appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 was pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, the present appeal, which arises from the same quantum assessment, should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with the pending quantum appeal. The assessee relied on the principle of adjudicating related matters together for efficiency and consistency. Revenue's Contention: The revenue supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). The Sr. DR did not present any specific arguments against the assessee's request for restoration but generally supported the lower authorities' positions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 07/10/2026Pronounced: 07/10/2026

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,कटकन्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.428/CTK/2026 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Chanchal Agrawal Vs ITO Ward-2(1), Sambalpur At: Bimla Bhawan, Panchgachha, Bareipali Sadar, Sambalpur PAN No. : AEQPA 8857 B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Narahari Swain, Himanshu Shekhar Jena and Ms. Rajashree Routray, ARs राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 07/10/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/10/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, in appeal No.NFAC/2015-16/10477178, dated 12/03/2026 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Shri Narahari Swain, Himanshu Shekhar Jena and Ms. Rajashree Routray, ARs, ld. ARs appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. Ld.AR submitted that the quantum appeal in appeal No.NFAC/2015- 16/10477177 is pending before the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication along with the quantum of appeal pending before him. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR supported the orders of the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A).

2 ITA No.428/CTK/2026 5. We have considered the rival submissions. As the quantum appeal of the assessee is pending before the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication, therefore, this penalty appeal arising out of the said quantum appeal, is also hereby restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to be heard along with the appeal of the assessee in appeal No.NFAC/2015-16/10477177 after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/10/2026. Sd/- Sd/- GOPALAN GURUSAMY GEORGE MATHAN लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER दिनाांक Dated 07/10/2026 RS आदेशकीप्रनतललपपअग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी/ The Appellant- 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent- 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT 4. ववभागीयप्रतततनधि, आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, 5. Cuttack 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard file. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावपतप्रतत //True Copy//

(Assistant Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →