What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that when the quantum of income is under dispute and has been set aside, the penalty issues should also be set aside to the first appellate authority to be decided after the quantum appeal is decided.

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). The assessee's quantum appeal for the same assessment year had been set aside to the CIT(A). The assessee requested the penalty appeal also be set aside to the CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty appeal should be set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication along with the quantum appeal which is pending before the same authority.

Arun Khurana, Faridabad vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” New Delhi

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

आदेश /O R D E R

This appeal filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Faridabad in relation to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Income tax Officer.

2. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty without considering the Ground No. 1 of the appeal. The appellate order is non-speaking order and liable to be set aside.”

Arun Khurana vs. ITO/ /A.Y.2010-11 Page 2 of 3

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this is penalty appeal for the year 2010-11 but in the quantum matter assessee filed appeal before the ITAT against the order of CIT(A) which has been set aside to the Ld. CIT(A). He requested that this penalty appeal may also be set aside to the CIT(A)-Faridabad to decide the issue involved in the present appeal along with the quantum appeal for the year 2010-11. In respect of his contention he has also filed a copy of order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi in Ward 1(5), Faridabad.

Ld. DR has not raised any objection on the request of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

Keeping in view of the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘A’ New Delhi in AY 2010-11 (supra).

I am of the view that when the quantum of which the penalty has been imposed by the Revenue Authority then the penalty issues should also be set aside to the Ld. First Appellate Authority to decide the same after the decision in the quantum appeal which is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). I ordered accordingly.

Arun Khurana vs. ITO/ /A.Y.2010-11 Page 3 of 3 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

ARUN KHURANA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments