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

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

The instant batch of four appeals involves twin assessees, namely, Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta and Sh. Anish Kumar Gupta. The Assessee by Sh. Anish Gupta, CA
Department by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
12.08.2025
Date of pronouncement
12.08.2025

ITA Nos.566 & 567/Del/2025 &
568 & 569/Del/2025

2 | P a g e first assessee, Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta has filed ITA Nos. 566 &
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 ITA Nos. 568 & 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

ITA Nos.566 & 567/Del/2025 &
568 & 569/Del/2025

3 | 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
ITA Nos.566 & 567/Del/2025 &
568 & 569/Del/2025

4 | P a g e had not specified the corresponding limb in his penalty show-cause notices forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty(ies) proceedings in very terms.
Ordered accordingly.
6. All other pleadings on merits in both the assessees’
instant four appeals stand rendered academic.
7. These assessees’ four appeals ITA Nos.566, 567, 568 &
569/Del/2025 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th August, 2025 (MANISH AGARWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 12th August, 2025. RK/-