SEJAL JATIN AMIN,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD 1, ANAND

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1894/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 February 2026AY 2011-12Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)3 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?

Since the underlying quantum appeal, which led to the penalty, had already been set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment, the tribunal decided to similarly set aside this penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c) to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty of Rs. 28,77,356/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income related to undisclosed capital gain of Rs. 97,98,500/- for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order for lack of opportunity of being heard and disputed the jurisdiction of the original assessment under Section 147, contending it should have been under Section 153C. Earlier, the quantum appeal (ITA No.1606/Ahd/2025) for the same assessment year was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

What were the issues?

{"Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing the order without providing proper opportunity of being heard.","Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income was justified.","Whether the original assessment under Section 147 was without proper jurisdiction, contending it should have been under Section 153C."}

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 147,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, AR
For Respondent: Shri C Dharni Nath , Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.02.2026Pronounced: 04.02.2026

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The Ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and in facts in passing the order without giving proper opportunity of being heard and thus, the order so passed is prayed to be set aside. 2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in levying penalty of Rs. 28,77,356/- u/s.271(1)(c) of Sejal Jain Amin Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– the Act on the ground that the appellant has concealed income of Rs. 97,98,500/- on account of undisclosed capital gain. The levy of impugned penalty of Rs. 28.77,356/-being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal

raised above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts confirming the penalty appeal when the original assessment order is passed u/s. 147 of the Act without having proper jurisdiction. The case is re-opened based on the evidences found in the search proceedings at the third party premises and thus, the assessment is required to be made uls. 153C of the Act. Thus, the quantum order so passed by the Ld. AO is without jurisdiction and thus the impugned penalty order is also deserved to be quashed as illegal and void.

4. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend substitute or withdraw any of the ground(s) of appeal hereinabove contained.

3.

At the outset, we noticed that quantum appeal bearing for A.Y 2011-12 dated 07.10.2025 has been restored to file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as below:

“…3. On perusal of the record, we find that notices of hearing were issued on several occasions, however, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite documents. There was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee did not furnish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted. We further note that the assessee had not complied even during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, if granted an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Sejal Jain Amin Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 3– Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments…”

4.

Since the quantum appeal has already been set-aside to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment, this appeal involving penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, is also set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 04.02.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 04.02.2026 MV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →