Income Tax

When quantum appeal restored, penalty can’t be levied for non-payment of demand

When quantum appeal stands restored to the AO, penalty can not be levied u/s 221(1) of the Income Tax Act for non -payment of the demand.

In a recent judgment, Allahabad ITAT has held that when the quantum appeal stands restored to the file of the AO and the demand has been vacated, the question of levying penalty under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for non -payment of the said demand does not arise.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5077 (2026) (03) abcaus.in ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming confirmed a penalty of Rs. 1 Lac levied by the Assessing Officer under section 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The assessment order was passed under section 153D(1)(B) of the Act r.w.s. 143(3). While passing the assessment order, the AO had made some additions and assessed the income of the assessee instead of the declared income.

After assessment, a demand had been raised which became due for payment. Subsequently, a notice under section 221(1) had been issued to the assessee and subsequently the AO had also allowed installments, vide an order. The AO recorded that three more notices under section 221(1) were issued followed by a show cause notice under section 276C(2). However, the assessee expressed its inability to make the payment. Subsequently, further notices under section 221(1) were issued.

However, assessee did not make any payment within the allowed time limit. Therefore, the AO after examining the ITR which showed that the assessee had sundry debtors of large amount held that the assessee had sufficient funds but was willfully avoiding the payment of tax.

Accordingly, he decided to impose a penalty (being the average 10% of balance demand) by treating the assessee in default under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act. 

Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the penalty was not leviable because the ITAT had restored the assessment back to the file of the AO, the demand no longer survived and therefore, the penalty was not maintainable.

The Revenue did not dispute the fact that following the restoration of the assessment back to the file of the AO, the earlier demand did not survive.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal stood restored to the file of the AO and the demand had been vacated, the question of levying penalty under section 221(1) for non -payment of the said demand does not arise.

Therefore, the penalty was deleted. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Release of seized assets if mandatory on completion of 120 days? Question referred to Larger Bench

Whether the release of seized assets is mandatory upon completion of 120 days –High Court refers the case to a…

6 hours ago
  • Uncategorized

EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31/10/2026

EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31st October 2026 Taking into account…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Earlier acceptance is relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation of fictitious investment

Earlier acceptance of investment is a relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation that investments were fictitious from inception – High…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

A bald statement recorded during survey can not be basis for any addition

A bald statement recorded during survey would not in itself be a foundation for any addition - ITAT In a…

3 days ago
  • ICAI

ICAI issued Guidelines for responding to Tenders by Chartered Accountants

ICAI issued Guidelines for responding to Tenders by Chartered Accountants The ICAI has issued Tender guidelines to Chartered Accountants for…

3 days ago
  • ICAI

Empanelment of ICAI Exam observer for January 2027 Examinations. Last date: 20.11.2026

Empanelment to act as ICAI exam observers for January 2027 CA Examination. Last date to apply is 20.11.2026 Empanelment of…

5 days ago