TARUNA VATSSA,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AGRA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the original assessment was set aside, requiring re-adjudication. Consequently, the penalty appeals were also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of a revised assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed penalties imposed under section 271F and 271B for AY 2013-14. The first appellate authority refused to admit the appeals due to an 18-month delay. The quantum assessment from which these penalties arose was previously set aside by the Tribunal for re-adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty appeals should be admitted despite the delay, given that the underlying assessment was set aside for re-adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty of Rs.5000/- u/s 271F for non- filing of return of income and another penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited for Assessment Year (AY) 2013- 14, the assessee has preferred the captioned appeals. The first appellate authority has refused to admit the appeals for want of condonation of delay of 18 months vide impugned orders dated 07-08-2024. Another fact brought on record is that the quantum assessment from which the aforesaid penalties emanate has already been set aside by Tribunal to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication vide order dated 07-02-2025, a copy of which is on record.
Since the assessment has already been set aside by Tribunal to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication, both these penalty appeals also stand restored back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration in the light of fresh assessment framed against the assessee. 3. Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13th February, 2025.
More judgments on Section 271F
- Anuragraiji Vallabhraiji Goswai, Surat vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), SuratITA 643/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2008-09
- Krunal Bharat Bha vs Ar, Ahmedabadvs.the Income Tax Officer…ITA 332/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Faiz Ala Faizi, Bangalore vs I.T.O., Ward - 54(2), KolkataITA 1374/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Imran Khan, Chandigarh vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals…ITA 689/CHANDI/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Imran Khan, Manimajra vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals…ITA 688/CHANDI/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026