LABH SINGH,PANCHKULA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO 2, PANCHKULA

ITA 724/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Labh Singh against a penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to quantum additions made during the assessment year 2011-12. The penalty was contested on the grounds that the very basis for its imposition—the quantum additions—had been deleted in a separate but related appeal (ITA No. 723/Chd/2025). The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the records, agreed with the assessee and allowed the appeal, thereby deleting the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774970 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 723/Chd/2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURINDER KAUR WARAICH
• Assessee Lawyers: RISHAB GUPTA

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 724/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Labh Singh, C/o M.K.Aggarwal & Associates, SCO 1,First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula बनाम Vs. ITO, Ward 2, Panchkula èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DIDPS5445F अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh Rishab Gupta, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual) सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 28-08-2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 01.09-2025 आदेश/Order This appeal by the assessee arises from the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty under Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty is directly related to the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer, which was the subject matter of appeal in ITA No. 723/Chd/2025. 2. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that since the very basis of penalty—namely, the addition Printed from counselvise.com 2 sustained in quantum proceedings—has already been deleted by the Tribunal in ITA No. 723, the penalty has no legs to stand. 3. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is an undisputed fact that the penalty in the present case is entirely based on the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the quantum proceedings. In ITA No. 723/Chd/2025, I have already deleted the said additions. Once the quantum additions themselves are deleted, the very foundation of the penalty does not survive. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any justification to sustain the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The same is directed to be deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 724/Chd/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced on 01.09.2025. Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) Judicial Member Printed from counselvise.com 3 “आर.क े.” 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 सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "