MALKIT KAUR,VILLAGE ALLOWAL , TEHSIL NABHA V. ITO WARD NABHA, NABHA

ITA 1096/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Malkit Kaur, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2015-16. The penalty was initially imposed due to alleged concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that the CIT (Appeals) did not consider a prior ITAT order which remanded the quantum addition back to the CIT (Appeals). The ITAT found merit in the appellant's argument and decided to remand the penalty proceedings as well, pending the outcome of the quantum appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791864 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH CAJLA
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. ITA No. 1096/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Malkit Kaur, Village – Allowal, Tehsil – Nabha. Vs The ITO, Ward, Nabha. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: HSPPK0814L अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JM This is the appeal filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the ld.CIT (Appeals) confirming the penalty in the hands of the assessee. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. That the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is bad in law and against facts of the case. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1096/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 2 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is not justified in upholding the penalty order without considering the order of the Hon’ble ITAT dated 30.05.2025 which was brought to his knowledge during the appellate proceedings. The order of the CIT (A) is 14.08.2025, i.e. later than the order of the Hon'ble ITAT. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is not justified in confirming the penalty order without adhering to the directions given by the Hon'ble ITAT. 4. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is erred in upholding the penalty order without recording satisfaction that there was concealment of particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income was furnished by the appellant. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is erred in confirming the penalty, wherein source of investment was fully explained. 6. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is not justified in confirming the penalty order wherein the legal issue regarding issuance of notice u/s 148 by JAO/FAO was involved and the ground of appeal was not adjudicated upon. 7. The appellant Craves leave to add, amend or delete any of the ground (s) of appeal before it is finally heard. 3. At the outset, ld. AR has fairly submitted that the quantum addition made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT (Appeals) was remanded back by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2025 passed in ITA 43/CHD/2025 and therefore, it would be in the fitness of facts that if the present penalty proceedings be also remanded back to the file of the ld.CIT (Appeals) to decide the issue alongwith the decision of the quantum appeal by the ld.CIT (Appeals). 3. Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1096/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 3 4. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the record. Undoubtedly, in the present case, the Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2025 has remanded back the matter to the file of the ld.CIT (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh. Since the very basis of imposition of penalty i.e. the quantum addition is pending before the ld.CIT (Appeals), therefore, we deem it appropriate to remand back the present penalty proceedings also to the file of the ld.CIT (Appeals) with a direction to decide the penalty proceeding after the decision of the quantum appellate proceeding. In case the ld.CIT (Appeals) allows the appeal of the assessee, then the penalty proceedings, which is an offshoot of the quantum proceeding, will also be liable to be aborted. With the above observation, we remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “Poonam” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1096/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 4 आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ/ CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "