SATI CHEMICAL AGENCY,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-7, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3497/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2026AY 2024-253 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate. An appeal cannot be filed merely in anticipation of penalty proceedings. The assessee has a remedy to appeal against any penalty order if it is passed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2024-25. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal because the Assessing Officer had not made any additions to the income. The assessee's primary concern was the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be filed against an order where no additions have been made, solely on the anticipation of penalty proceedings? Whether the notice under Section 143(2) and the assessment order under Section 148B were bad in law?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 143(2),Section 148B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

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 05.02.2026, for Assessment Year 2024-25.

2.

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.

ITA 3497/DEL/2026 SATI CHEMICAL AGENCY

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.” 3. 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’).

4.

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).

5.

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 21st day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 29-May-2026

ITA 3497/DEL/2026 SATI CHEMICAL AGENCY

Copy to: SATI CHEMICAL AGENCY, 6117, GALI BATASAN, KHARI BAOLI 1 DELHI, DELHI-110006, DELHI

DCIT CC-7, 2 -, NEW DELHI-110005, DELHI

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →