ANISH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 568/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 August 2025AY 2007-084 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 the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are vitiated. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.). The reasoning was that the Assessing Officer had failed to specify the corresponding limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income) in the penalty show-cause notices. This failure, being a clinching fact that went unrebutted by the Revenue, renders the penalty proceedings invalid. Consequently, all other pleadings on merits have become academic. The appeals were allowed in these terms.

What were the facts?

The appeals concern two assessees, Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta and Sh. Anish Kumar Gupta, for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The appeals are against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 20.11.2024, 11.06.2024, 15.01.2025, and 15.01.2025. These orders upheld penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had imposed penalties amounting to Rs. 87,45,884/- each for both assessment years on Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, and Rs. 44,48,836/- each for both assessment years on Sh. Anish Kumar Gupta. The Assessing Officer's orders imposing these penalties were dated 28.03.2023 and 22.05.2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are vitiated due to the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the exact limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income) in the show-cause notices issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act. The assessee contended that the penalty proceedings are bad in law because the Assessing Officer issued show-cause notices dated 30.12.2017 and 30.03.2015 under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee argued that this omission vitiates the entire proceedings. This fact went unrebutted by the Revenue. The Revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271C,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 12.08.2025Pronounced: 12.08.2025

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

The instant batch of four appeals involves twin assessees, namely, Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta and Sh. Anish Kumar Gupta. The first assessee, Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta has filed & 567/Del/2025 pertaining to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008- 09 against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders dated 20.11.2024 and 11.06.2024 having DIN and Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070481230(1) and ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065531885(1) & the second assessee Sh. Anish Kumar Gupta has preferred & 569/Del/2025 against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s orders, both dated 15.01.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1072174011(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1072174294(1) involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

2.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

3.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessees to have levied section 271(1)(c) penalty(ies) in question amounting to Rs.87,45,884/- each for both the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 in case of first

2 | P a g e assessee; and Rs.44,48,836/- each for both the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 in the case of second assessee vide Assessing Officer’s orders dated 28.03.2023 and 22.05.2023; respectively, which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed lower appellate discussion.

4.

The assessees have first of all raised their legal pleas that once the learned Assessing Officer had admittedly issued his as many penalties show-cause notice dated 30.12.2017 and 30.03.2015 u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act not specifying any specific limb as to whether they had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of taxable income; as the case may be, his failure to this effect vitiates the entire proceedings therefore. Relevant notices dated 30.03.2015 and 30.12.2017 form part of the records before us. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side.

5.

Faced with this situation, we quote PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) to conclude that once the learned Assessing Officer

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 →