DINESH CHAND KAUSHIK,ALIGARH V. ITO, DELHI

ITA 469/AGR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dinesh Chand Kaushik, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2021-22. The penalty was based on additions made to the assessee's income, which included unexplained sundry creditors and disallowed expenses. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, leading to this appeal. The Tribunal noted that the underlying quantum of income had been remitted back for reassessment, which rendered the penalty order infructuous and necessitated a fresh look at the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829912 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Agra
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE; REVENUE; R.P. MAURYA; A
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK GUPTA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 469/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dinesh Chand Kaushik, 09, Pratibha Colony, Phase-II, Aligarh-202001 (UP). Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(1), Aligarh. PAN : ANHPK7491F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate Department by Sh. R.P. Maurya, CIT (A)-1/DR Date of hearing 16.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 15.01.2026 ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 20.08.2025, passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2020-21/10264126 by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2021-22, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer u/s. 270A of the Act, vide penalty order dated 26.06.2023. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.469/Agr/2025 2 | P a g e 2. Brief facts are that the assessment in this case was completed for A.Y. 2021-22, vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and assessed an income of Rs.16,59,86,605/-. The penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income were also initiated, based on the addition of Rs.4,04,56,421/- made u/s. 41(1) of the Act on account of unexplained sundry creditors and addition of Rs.20,33,180/- made on account of disallowance of various expenses claimed by assessee. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.3,63,46,544/- @ 200% of the amount of tax payable on the aforesaid two additions, vide penalty order dated 26.06.2023. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty and dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 4. This second appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty without allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing and ignoring the fact that penalty order was passed without specifying any specific charge/limb of section 270A in the show cause notice. 5. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for assessee and learned DR for revenue. 6. At the very outset, learned AR for assessee has brought to our notice that the quantum appeal ITA No. 339/Agr/2025, filed by assessee Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.469/Agr/2025 3 | P a g e has been remitted back to the file of Assessing officer for passing the assessment afresh. Hence, the penalty order does not survive, having become infructuous. 7. Learned DR for revenue has supported the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 8. We observe that once the appeal filed before the ITAT against the quantum additions, on the basis of which, impugned penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer, has been remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for passing assessment order afresh, we deem it expedient in the interest of justice that the present matter relating to penalty u/s. 270A of the Act should also go back to the file of Assessing Officer for passing penalty order afresh in accordance with law based on the outcome of fresh assessment. We order accordingly. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall ensure observance of the principles of natural justice. Assessee’s appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes accordingly. 9. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.01.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 15.01.2026 *aks/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.469/Agr/2025 4 | P a g e Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "