AMBASSADOR BUILDING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 1314/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 September 2026AY 2012-139 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the NCLT order, approving the scheme of compromise and arrangement, overrides the Income Tax Act provisions due to Section 238 of the IBC Code. Therefore, the CIT(A) was precluded from adjudicating the penalty appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, previously known as M/s Kansal Building Solutions Pvt. Ltd., was subjected to insolvency proceedings. A scheme of compromise and arrangement was approved by the NCLT, discharging the company from all liabilities prior to the scheme approval date.

What were the issues?

Whether proceedings for penalty under the Income Tax Act are valid after an NCLT approved scheme of compromise and arrangement discharges all prior liabilities, and if the IBC Code overrides the Income Tax Act in such cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250,Section 238,Section 13(2),Section 230,Section 23(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Narayan, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Bhogendra Prasad, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 14.09.2026

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [ACCOUNTANT MEMBER]:

The above-captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.08.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A), NFAC’) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), arising out of the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), New Delhi for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

ITA No.1314/Del/2026 [for A.Y 2012-13] Ambassador Building Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO “A. BECAUSE the impugned order dated 22.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →