AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 06.02.2026, for Assessment Year 2024-25.
The assessee in appeal has assailed the order of CIT(A) on following grounds:-
“1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the learned assessing officer and the addition made therein is bad-in-law and CIT(A) erred in no holding so.
2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s.143(2) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is contrary to the provisions of section 148B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.”
No tax effect is involved in the aforesaid grounds as no addition has been made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee for the reason that no addition has been made by the AO. The solitary reason for filing the present appeal by the assessee is assailing initiation of levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
It is no more res-integra that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. A quantum appeal cannot be filed merely in anticipation of penalty proceedings. In any case, if any penalty proceedings are initiated, the assessee has remedy to file appeal against the penalty order, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I find to infirmity in the order of the CIT(A).
In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed.