GURBINDER SINGH,PASLA, DISTRICT JALANDHAR V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PHAGWARA, DISTRICT KAPURTHALA

ITA 89/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Gurbinder Singh, against a penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2, Phagwara, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was based on an assessment order determining the total income at Rs. 1.89 crores for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee contested the penalty, which was initially upheld by the CIT (A). However, the CIT (A) later set aside the assessment order, leading to the quashing of the penalty by the tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833486 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHARAN DASS
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA SHARMA
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘DB’ AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 89/ASR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Gurbinder Singh, Village Pasla, Tehsil Phillaur, Punjab 144037 Vs The ITO, Ward02, Phagwara, Distt.Kapurthala èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: EJAPS2712G अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent VIRTUAL HEARING Assessee by : Sh. Aditya Sharma, CA Revenue by : Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 28.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward-2, Phagwara, dated 26.09.2016 imposing a penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 2. In course of hearing before the tribunal the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the only dispute in this case is that a penalty has been imposed by the AO u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs. 63.22 lakhs, which has flown from the assessment order dated 18/03/2016, (incorrectly Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 89/ASR/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 2 mentioned as 26/02/2016 in para -2 of penalty order) passed u/s 144/147 of the Act determining total income at Rs.1.89 crores. 3. The said assessment order dated 18/03/2016 was challenged before the Ld first appellate authority , NFAC, Delhi and the Ld CIT(A) vide order dated 24/06/2025, passed u/s 250 of the Act , has set aside the matter back to the files of the AO for fresh assessment ( a copy of the said appeal order has been submitted as an enclosure to pb – 8 ) before the tribunal, consequently the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, and sustained in first appeal does not survive. 4. The Ld DR has no objection after verification of records. 5. As such the penalty order dated 26th September, 2016 imposed u/s 271(1) (c ) amounting to Rs. 63.22 lakhs does not survive and the same is quashed. 6. As such the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 03.02.2026. SD/- SD/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “rkk” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 89/ASR/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 3 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "