Case Law Details
Sangeeta Kathuria Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes by setting aside the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(B) of the Income-tax Act and remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. During the hearing, the assessee submitted that the related quantum appeal for the same assessment year had already been set aside by the Tribunal and restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Departmental Representative did not dispute this submission. The Tribunal referred to its earlier order dated 15.05.2025 in the quantum appeal, where it had held that the assessee had not filed the original return under Section 139 or in response to a notice under Section 148. Consequently, there was no admission of income and no advance tax liability, making Section 249(4)(b) inapplicable.
The Tribunal had also observed that the assessment was framed ex parte and restored the matter to the AO with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the issues in the quantum appeal had already been remitted for fresh adjudication, the Tribunal held that the connected penalty proceedings should also be set aside and restored to the AO for decision in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
1. This penalty appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as `1d. NFAC’, in short] dated 14.11.2025 arising from the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 19.08.2025 by the Assessing Officer, Na FAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `1d. AO’).
2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that quantum appeal against which this penalty appeal has been filed, has already been set aside and issues involved therein have been remitted back to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication, in accordance with law. Ld. DR could not controvert the aforesaid proposition of the Ld. AR.
3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. We find that Tribunal in assessee’s own case in quantum appeal being ITA No. 5888/De1/2024 (AY 201516) vide order dated 15.5.2025 has held as under:-
“2. We find that the assessee had not filed the original return of income u/s 139 of the Act or in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, there was no admission of any income by the assessee in the entire proceedings for the year under consideration. While this is so, there cannot be any advance tax liability that could be fastened on the assessee. Once there is no question of payment of advance tax, the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act cannot be pressed into service. Hence, we hold that the ld NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.
3. In this case, the assessment was also framed ex parte. Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fairplay, to restore this appeal to the file of the ld AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. With these directions, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.”
4. After perusing the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, we note that issues involved in the quantum appeal of the same assessment year have already been remitted back to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication, thus, the instant penalty also require to be set aside on the similar lines to the file of the AO for deciding the same, in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court 15.05.2026.
Author Bio
