SCHENKER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF SCHENKER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (PAN-AAACS8948J)),HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(2), CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2818/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 November 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 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 since the quantum assessment orders were set aside by the First Appellate Authority, the substratum of the penalty orders, which arose from those assessment orders, was demolished and thus the penalty orders were liable to be quashed. The appeals were allowed.

What were the facts?

The appeals were preferred by the Assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which upheld penalty orders passed under Section 271B and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original assessment proceedings were ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty orders can survive if the underlying assessment orders are set aside. Legality of proceedings against a non-existing entity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &, Shri Harmeet Singh, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR
Hearing: 12.11.2025Pronounced: 26.11.2025
1.

ITAs No.2817 & 2818/Del/2025 of the appeals before it against the orders dated 29.09.2022 passed u/s 271B and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’), respectively, by the IT Deptt., Circle-22(2), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that amongst other grounds on the legality of the proceedings being conducted in case of a non-existing entity, it was submitted before us that the quantum proceedings have been set aside to the AO on the basis that assessee was also ex parte in the assessment proceedings.

3.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the quantum addition has been set aside to ld. AO for a fresh order, the present proceedings have arisen only out of assessment orders which no more exist, the substratum of the penalty orders gets demolished and thus are liable to be quashed. The appeals are accordingly allowed. However, this will not be embargo on fresh penalty proceedings, if initiated in consequence to the fresh assessment orders.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →