SEJAL JATIN AMIN,ANAND V. THE ITO, WARD 1, ANAND

ITA 1894/AHD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sejal Jatin Amin against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The penalty was levied for alleged concealment of income amounting to Rs. 97,98,500, categorized as undisclosed capital gain. The appellant contested the penalty on grounds of lack of proper hearing and jurisdictional issues concerning the assessment order's issuance under section 147 instead of section 153C, following search proceedings at a third party's premises. The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been set aside for de novo assessment, leading to the decision to also set aside the penalty and remand the case for reassessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833770 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C DHARNI NATH
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMANT SUTHAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1894/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sejal Jatin Amin, 5, Navrang Society, Amul Dairy Road, Anand-388001. [PAN :ADXPP1419 L] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hemant Suthar, AR Respondent by: Shri C Dharni Nath , Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 04.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and in facts in passing the order without giving proper opportunity of being heard and thus, the order so passed is prayed to be set aside. 2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in levying penalty of Rs. 28,77,356/- u/s.271(1)(c) of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1894/Ahd/2025 Sejal Jain Amin Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– the Act on the ground that the appellant has concealed income of Rs. 97,98,500/- on account of undisclosed capital gain. The levy of impugned penalty of Rs. 28.77,356/-being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal raised above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts confirming the penalty appeal when the original assessment order is passed u/s. 147 of the Act without having proper jurisdiction. The case is re-opened based on the evidences found in the search proceedings at the third party premises and thus, the assessment is required to be made uls. 153C of the Act. Thus, the quantum order so passed by the Ld. AO is without jurisdiction and thus the impugned penalty order is also deserved to be quashed as illegal and void. 4. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend substitute or withdraw any of the ground(s) of appeal hereinabove contained. 3. At the outset, we noticed that quantum appeal bearing ITA No.1606/Ahd/2025 for A.Y 2011-12 dated 07.10.2025 has been restored to file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as below: “…3. On perusal of the record, we find that notices of hearing were issued on several occasions, however, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite documents. There was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee did not furnish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted. We further note that the assessee had not complied even during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, if granted an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1894/Ahd/2025 Sejal Jain Amin Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 3– Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments…” 4. Since the quantum appeal has already been set-aside to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment, this appeal involving penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, is also set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 04.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 04.02.2026 MV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "