Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) confirming a penalty. The penalty was imposed consequent to a quantum addition, which itself had been remanded by the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the basis of the penalty (quantum addition) was under remand. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to remand the penalty proceedings as well, to be decided after the quantum appeal's decision.
Key Issues
Whether penalty proceedings should be decided pending the decision of the quantum addition which has been remanded.
Sections Cited
148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
O R D E R
PER LALIET KUMAR, JM
This is the appeal filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the ld.CIT (Appeals) confirming the penalty in the hands of the assessee.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. That the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is bad in law and against facts of the case. A.Y. 2015-16 2
1. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is not justified in upholding the penalty order without considering the order of the Hon’ble ITAT dated 30.05.2025 which was brought to his knowledge during the appellate proceedings. The order of the CIT (A) is 14.08.2025, i.e. later than the order of the Hon'ble ITAT.
3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is not justified in confirming the penalty order without adhering to the directions given by the Hon'ble ITAT.
4. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is erred in upholding the penalty order without recording satisfaction that there was concealment of particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income was furnished by the appellant.
5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is erred in confirming the penalty, wherein source of investment was fully explained.
6. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is not justified in confirming the penalty order wherein the legal issue regarding issuance of notice u/s 148 by JAO/FAO was involved and the ground of appeal was not adjudicated upon.
7. The appellant Craves leave to add, amend or delete any of the ground (s) of appeal before it is finally heard.
3. At the outset, ld. AR has fairly submitted that the quantum addition made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT (Appeals) was remanded back by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2025 passed in ITA 43/CHD/2025 and therefore, it would be in the fitness of facts that if the present penalty proceedings be also remanded back to the file of the ld.CIT (Appeals) to decide the issue alongwith the decision of the quantum appeal by the ld.CIT (Appeals).
Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities. A.Y. 2015-16 3
We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the record. Undoubtedly, in the present case, the Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2025 has remanded back the matter to the file of the ld.CIT (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh. Since the very basis of imposition of penalty i.e. the quantum addition is pending before the ld.CIT (Appeals), therefore, we deem it appropriate to remand back the present penalty proceedings also to the file of the ld.CIT (Appeals) with a direction to decide the penalty proceeding after the decision of the quantum appellate proceeding. In case the ld.CIT (Appeals) allows the appeal of the assessee, then the penalty proceedings, which is an offshoot of the quantum proceeding, will also be liable to be aborted. With the above observation, we remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.