Kapil Khandelwal, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose
ITA 335/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.
For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)
…ecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors (1987)167 ITR 471 (SC) and that of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court Bharat Auto Centre vs. CIT 82 ITR 366 (All) and in the case of Smt Govinda Devi vs. CIT 304 ITR 340 (All) to pray that where the party did not gain 4 A.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal any advantage by causing delay, the authority or Court must condone the delay and proceed to decide the matter on merits, after taking a liberal and pragmatic view because refusing to condone a delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very t…
