Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of NFAC, Delhi, which arose from the order of the Assessing Officer. The appeal was filed with a delay of 6 days, which was condoned due to sufficient reasons. The assessee's AR drew attention to a previous order u/s 263, which referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Held
The Tribunal noted that since the CIT(A) had previously passed an order u/s 263 directing fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer, the penalty proceedings initiated pursuant to a subsequent order by the Assessing Officer had become infructuous. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty proceedings are valid when the matter was previously remanded for fresh consideration by a higher authority? Whether the penalty order is infructuous given the prior order?
Sections Cited
250, 144, 144B, 263, 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
order
: January 21, 2026 ORDER
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.08.2025 of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020–21 which is arisen from the order of the Assessing Officer dated 20.09.2022 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.
The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 6 days and the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After going over the said petition, we find sufficient reasons behind the delay and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.
3. At the outset, the ld. AR drew our attention to the order passed u/s u/s 263 dated 25.11.2015, whereby the ld. CIT(A) has referred back the Sreema Associates Pvt. Ltd matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The ld. AR therefore submits that the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act has become infructuous as the same was pursuant to the order of the Assessing Officer dated 20.09.2022 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.
We have perused the materials on record and find that since the ld. CIT(A) has passed an order u/s 263 dated 25.11.2015 directing Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, therefore, the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act have no legs to stand which arise from the order of the Assessing Officer dated 20.09.2022. Hence, the penalty order is set aside.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Kolkata, the 21st January, 2026.