KIRAN BALA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 341/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 February 2026AY 2012-13Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the penalty on the addition of Rs. 31,29,215/- for unexplained income from jewellery sale and the Rs. 61,00,000/- addition for unexplained unsecured loans. However, the appeal was partly allowed, implying the penalty on the share sale issue might not have been upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2012-13. The penalty was levied on additions made by the AO regarding sale of jewellery, denial of LTCG exemption on shares, and unexplained cash credits (unsecured loans). The Tribunal had previously upheld these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable on additions that were upheld by the Tribunal, particularly when the issue of LTCG exemption was admitted as a substantial question of law by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 10(38),Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood

Hearing: 04/02/2026

PER. RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 20/12/2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 30/08/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

2 “Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

1.

The Id. CIT(A)

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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 →