ABDULWAHID ABDULKARIM QURESHI,SANGAMNER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2085/PUN/2025Status: HeardITAT Pune07 January 2026Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 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 observed that a previous Tribunal order in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year had already deleted the original addition made by the Assessing Officer. Since the very foundation for levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) no longer existed due to the deletion of the underlying addition, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 47,94,700/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on an addition of Rs. 1,38,31,394/- treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, which was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The assessee filed an appeal against this order with a 128-day delay, which was subsequently condoned by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for unexplained cash credit can be sustained when the underlying addition itself has been deleted by a prior Tribunal order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi (through virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to:

1. 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2.

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 →