DUXTON HILLS BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals were remanded, the penalty appeals became infructuous. Therefore, the penalty appeals were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The appeals concerned penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer had imposed these penalties. The quantum appeals related to the same issues had been remanded back to the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum appeal has been remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI O. P. KANT & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
In both these appeals, the issue is relating to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the quantum appeals relating to these penalty appeals are decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 05.02.2020 (ITA No. 1396/Del/2016 & in case of Fusion Conbuild (P) Ltd. and ITA No. 1394/Del/2016 & ITA No. 639/Del/2016 in case of Duxton Hills Builders (P) Ltd). In the quantum appeals, the Tribunal has remanded back the issue to the file of Assessing Officer. Hence, the Ld. AR submitted that these appeals become infructuous. The Ld. DR confirmed the order of the Tribunal in respective of both the assessees’ case dealing quantum issue.
We have heard both the parties and perused the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the Tribunal in quantum appeals. Since, the quantum appeals and the issue raised therein are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 becomes infructuous at this juncture. Hence both the appeals are dismissed.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026