OOPAL DIAMOND,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8071/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 February 2026AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered incorrect facts and assessment orders not pertaining to the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which upheld a penalty order. The CIT(A) purportedly considered incorrect facts and assessment orders from different dates and assessment years than the current case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) considered correct facts and relevant assessment orders while adjudicating the penalty appeal. Whether the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) was correctly upheld by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAVSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi
For Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing – 17/02/2026 Date of Order - 19/02/2026

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order of dated 15.09.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”), at the outset, by referring to the impugned order, submitted that the learned CIT(A), while dismissing the assessee’s appeal against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, has considered incorrect facts, which do not pertain to the year under consideration. In this regard, our attention was drawn to paragraph 2.1 of the impugned order, wherein the learned CIT(A) has taken into consideration the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2009–10. Further, it was submitted that the reference to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is also incorrect, as in the present case, the assessment order is dated 27.03.2015, whereas the assessment order taken into consideration by the learned CIT(A) is dated 14.12.2019. We find a similar error in the decision of the learned CIT(A) in paragraph 5 of the order, which is reproduced below: - “5.1 It is evident from the assessment order dated 14.12.2019 that the impugned purchases claimed by the assesse is treated as bogus in entirety. Further, the appeal filed by the appellant against the quantum addition made vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 14.12.2019 has been dismissed by National Faceless Appeal Centre vide order dated 15.09.2025. In view of the above, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 vide order u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2019 is being upheld and the present appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed.”

3.

Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after considering the correct facts in the assessee’s case for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/02/2026

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →