INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANJAY PLACE vs. AMIT SHUKLA, KHANDARI
Facts
The Revenue challenged a penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had appealed to the CIT(Appeals), who deleted both the quantum and the penalty. The ITAT reversed the CIT(Appeals)'s order, and the assessee then appealed to the High Court, which admitted the appeal. The current penalty appeal by the Revenue is dependent on the outcome of the High Court's decision on the quantum appeal.
Held
The present penalty appeal is remitted back to the Assessing Officer, who is directed to follow the decision of the High Court on the quantum appeal. The Assessing Officer is permitted to initiate penalty proceedings afresh after the High Court's decision, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty levied under section 271D is sustainable in light of the ongoing High Court appeal on the quantum aspect?
Sections Cited
271D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 177/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income-tax Officr, Vs. Amit Shukla, 2/90, Kotla House, Ward 1(1)(1), Agra. Khandari, Agra. PAN :AMIPS4715Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department by Shri R.P. Maurya, CIT (A)-1/DR Date of hearing 18.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.12.2025 ORDER
At the outset, it is brought to my notice that in this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for the assessment years 2017-18. 2. The brief facts brought to my notice relevant to this appeal are, aggrieved with the assessment order, passed in quantum, as well as impugned penalty order, levying penalties by the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) and learned CIT(Appeals) deleted the quantum and accordingly deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the above order passed by learned CIT(Appeals) in quantum appeal, Revenue preferred appeal before ITAT and the ITAT has reversed the findings of learned CIT(Appeals). Against the above order of
ITA No. 177/Agr/2025
ITAT, assessee preferred appeal before Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court has admitted the appeal of the assessee and pending adjudication. 4. Considering the above facts on record, I observe that the present penalty appeal preferred by the Revenue is dependent upon the outcome of the quantum appeal preferred by the assessee before the Hon’ble High Court. That being the case, the present appeal, challenging the deletion of penalty u/s. 271D of the Act, is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to follow the decision of the Hon’ble High Court on the quantum appeal. Based on the above findings, the Assessing Officer is given liberty to initiate the penalty proceedings afresh dependent upon the outcome in assessee’s appeal pending before Hon’ble High Court, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025 and reduced in writing on this 29th day of December, 2025. Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 29.12.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
2 | P a g e
