SHRI KIRANJIT SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 (3), AMRITSAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal should also be restored back to the CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with the quantum appeal. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee's quantum appeal for the same assessment year was previously restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty appeal should be adjudicated separately or along with the quantum appeal, especially when the quantum appeal has been restored for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.05.2023 for Assessment Year: 2010-2011 wherein he has challenged
Kiranjit Singh v. ITO confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case.
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal in the assessee’s own case in for AY: 2010-11 vide order dated 22.06.2023 has been restored back to the ld. CIT(A) by Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law with the direction to the CIT(A) to pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order after making such enquiry and verification as he may deem fit and after granting proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He, further prayed that the matter of penalty may also be sent back to the ld. CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal.
The ld. DR for the department has no objection to the request of the assessee.
Having heard both the sides and perusal of record and the order of the Tribunal in quantum appeal. It is noted that the assessee’s matter in quantum appeal has been restored back to the ld. CIT(A) by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.06.2023 in as above (APB pg. 7 to 16). Since the quantum appeal is sent back to the ld. CIT(A) to pass a Kiranjit Singh v. ITO speaking order on merits of the case after granting sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. We hold that the penalty matter would also go back to the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with the quantum appeal. In view of the matter, we consider it deem fit to restore back the appeal of the assessee on the penalty matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate as per law along with the quantum appeal after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the matter is restored back to the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2023
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026