AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 23.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.
In this case, the AO has levied a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.18,75,630/- on the ground that the assessee had purchased immovable property and also received salary during the year under consideration. However, the assessee had not filed any return of income. Thereafter, the Ld. AO added Rs.55,00,000/- as unexplained investment in property and Rs.5,70,000/- as cash deposit in the bank which was not explained.
The assessee approached the CIT(A) where through a very cryptic order, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.
The assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the impugned action.
On the last date of hearing, the Ld. AR made a statement at the Bar that the quantum matter was pending before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore either the present proceedings may be kept in abeyance or they should be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication along with the quantum matter.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have perused the documents before us and have heard both the sides. A perusal of the orders of the authorities below reveals that such orders have been passed in one-sides manner. Also, once it is known that the quantum matter is pending before the First Appellate Authority then it would be in the fitness of things that the quantum and penalty should be heard together. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication along with the quantum matter.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.