What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following its coordinate bench's order, decided to remand the penalty appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This ensures consistency in the proceedings.

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 concerns penalty proceedings under section 271AAC1. The quantum appeal for the same assessment year was previously restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC on merits.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the penalty appeal should be adjudicated independently or be consequential to the quantum appeal. The Tribunal decided to remand it for fresh adjudication.

Sanjay Mittal, Bahadurgarh vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 06.01.2025Pronounced: 06.01.2025

Date of hearing 06.01.2025 Date of pronouncement 06.01.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067791249(1), dated 20.08.2024 involving proceedings under section 271AAC1 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges at the outset that the tribunal’s recent coordinate bench’s order dated 31st December, 2024 in assessee’s quantum appeal has restored the issue on merits back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.

This being the clinching fact emerging from the case file, I hereby adopt judicial consistency to remand the assessee’s instant consequential penalty appeal as well back to the CIT(A) for afresh appropriate adjudication in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

SANJAY MITTAL,BAHADURGARH vs. ITO, WARD - 2, ROHTAK

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments