ANUBHA BANSAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2640/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 October 2025AY 2015-16Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member)2 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?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which was the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted in a previous appeal by the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was consequential and without basis.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The penalty was imposed following certain additions made by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum addition has been deleted?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv
Hearing: 13.10.2025Pronounced: 13.10.2025

Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Anubha Bansal, Vs ACIT, C/o Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Circle-10(1), F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110085 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEQPB4221G Assessee by : Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.10.2025 ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074272588(1) dated 10.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground pleaded in the instant appeal challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.76,80,559/-, it transpires at the outset that the tribunal’s Anubha Bansal order in her quantum appeal dated 19.09.2025 has already deleted the corresponding quantum addition; and, therefore, it is concluded that the impugned penalty has no legs to stand being consequential in nature. The same is directed to be deleted in very terms.

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 →