No Penalty Sustainable on Invalid Electronic Evidence, Rules ITAT:

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 22 May 2026 held that penalty proceedings cannot survive when the very electronic material forming the basis of the addition has already been declared legally inadmissible in connected quantum proceedings. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ms Madhumita Roy and Accountant Member Shri Amitabh Shukla deleted penalties aggregating to Rs 40 lakh imposed on Gaurav Rakhecha for AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21.

The dispute arose after the JCIT, Central Range-04, New Delhi, levied penalties based on certain electronic “hawala tokens” allegedly recovered during proceedings involving M/s Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue relied entirely upon those digital records to initiate and sustain the penal action against the assessee.

However, before the Tribunal, the assessee pointed out that a Coordinate Bench had already quashed the underlying quantum additions in the case of Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. after holding that the electronic records relied upon by the department were unauthenticated and inadmissible in law. It was argued that once the very evidentiary foundation had ceased to exist, the consequential penalty proceedings also became unsustainable. The tribunal pointed out that, “The very basis of the penalty proceedings stood demolished once the electronic evidence relied upon by the Revenue was held to be legally inadmissible.”

Also Read

ITAT Invalidates Section 153D Approval As Given Without Application of Mind

The Tribunal observed that the department was attempting to sustain secondary penalty proceedings using the same electronic material which had already been rejected by a Coordinate Bench in the connected quantum matter. It held that penalty proceedings cannot have an independent existence where the core material itself has been held to be invalid in the eyes of the law.

The Bench further noted that once the primary additions were quashed for want of admissible evidence, no separate penal consequences could continue merely on the basis of those rejected documents. “A penalty order cannot survive when its very evidentiary substratum has already been set aside in the connected assessment proceedings.”

Thus, the ITAT allowed all three appeals filed by the assessee and quashed the penalty orders passed by the Revenue authorities.