AMAR NATH GUPTA & SON,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 90/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2026AY 2019-205 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are unsustainable if the quantum additions on which they are based are deleted. Since the assessee's appeal against the additions was allowed, the penalty levied under Section 271D was also quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271D. The penalty was based on alleged cash receipts related to the sale of immovable property, which formed the basis of additions under Section 69A. However, the assessee's appeal against these quantum additions had already been allowed by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271D can survive when the underlying additions leading to the penalty have been deleted by the appellate authority? Whether the penalty is a consequence of a valid assessment order?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 69A,Section 269SS,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’:NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Shri Ayush Garg, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’:NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.90/Del./2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2019-20) Amar Nath Gupta & Son, vs. DCIT, Central Circle 15, 1526/1, Bhagirath Place, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. (PAN : AAAHA3320H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ayush Garg, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.05.2026 Date of Order : 29.07.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. 1. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi – 26 [for short ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 22.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2019-20.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice 2. relevant facts of the case and submitted his submissions. He submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by ld.

2 ITA No.90/Del/2026

CIT(A) dated 22.12.2025, confirming the penalty levied by the AO under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

He submitted that in the case of the assessee, under the quantum 3. proceedings wherein additions were made u/s 69A of the Act, the AO had alleged cash receipts to the tune of Rs.60,00,000 by the assessee, against the sale of share in an immovable property, from Ms. Kusum Jain. He submitted that the assessee's appeal has already been allowed by the Bench ‘A’ of ITAT Delhi vide order dated 27.02.2026 in ITA No.6425/DEL2025, deleting the above alleged addition in the assessee's case.

He further submitted that in the order, it was observed that the AO's 4. assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C was itself vitiated, placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I Vs. M/s Calcutta Knitwears Ludhiana (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC) dated 12.03.2014, read with CBDT Circular No. 242015 dated 31.12.2025, and therefore the appeal was allowed and reassessment order was quashed.

He submitted that penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act are liable to 5. be quashed in cases where the appeals against Quantum Additions, on the basis of which such penalty is imposed, are allowed. He submitted that the AO while alleging the above transaction by the assessee, also

3 ITA No.90/Del/2026

proceeded to levy penalty from the assessee u/s 271D of the Act citing violation of provisions of the section 269SS of the Act. He further submitted that the penalty levied under section 271D is unsustainable in law once the assessment order stands annulled. This legal position is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Versus M/s Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, dated 20.11.2025, 2015 (11) TMI 1453. Further, he placed reliance on the recent judgement of ITAT Delhi in the case of Rudra Buildwell Projects P. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle, Noida, dated 15.01.2025, 2025 (1) TMI 1232.

He submitted that the same principle has been consistently followed by 6. various judicial forums and relied on various decisions. He submitted that thus, the consistent judicial view is that penalty is only a consequence of a valid assessment, and cannot stand independently when the very assessment order is held to be invalid or void ab initio. In view of the above settled legal position, he submitted that the penalty levied u/s 271D deserves to be quashed for AY 2019-20.

7.

On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below.

4 ITA No.90/Del/2026

8.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We have gone through the detailed submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee. We observed that the quantum proceedings wherein additions were made u/s 69A of the Act has already been allowed by the Bench ‘A’ of ITAT Delhi vide order dated 27.02.2026. We further observed that various decisions have held that proceedings u/s 271D of the Act are liable to be quashed in cases where the appeals against Quantum Additions, on the basis of which such penalty is imposed, are allowed. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied under section 271D is unsustainable in law once the assessment order stands annulled and this legal position is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Versus M/s Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). Accordingly, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of July, 2026.

Sd/- sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 29.07.2026 TS

5 ITA No.90/Del/2026

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →