Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum addition has been deleted?
Sections Cited
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
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:
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”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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.