BABUBHAI GANGABHAI BAGUL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

ITA 1352/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 March 2026AY 2010-11Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty matter was also restored back to the AO to be decided afresh along with the quantum proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A) which confirmed the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2010-11. The assessee's counsel pointed out that the quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order needs to be quashed when the underlying quantum addition is pending adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH “SMC”, SURAT

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 23.03.2026

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi order dated 11.11.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. 2. At the outset, itself Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the quantum appeal of the assessee, the additions made in which were the basis for the levy of penalty, has been restored back by the ITAT to the

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 →