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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2413/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 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 admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee concerning the validity of penalty proceedings due to the show-cause notice not specifying the specific limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Citing landmark judgments, the Tribunal held that such a failure vitiates the penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed three appeals against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC upholding penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. The penalties were levied based on the Assessing Officer's findings of inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are vitiated if the show-cause notice fails to specify the limb of the alleged offense (concealment or inaccurate particulars) as required by Section 274 of the Income-tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 05.06.2025Pronounced: 05.06.2025

ORDER These assessee’s three appeals 2412 & 2413/Del/2025 for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009- 10, are directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, all dated 10.02.2025, having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073060920(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073061049(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1073061947(1), respectively involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

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 assessee to have furnished it’s inaccurate particulars of income to levy section 271(1)(c) penalty(ies) in question amounting to Rs.41,86,460/-; Rs.46,88,240/- and Rs.6,62,805/- for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 vide Assessing Officer’s orders dated 29.05.2023 and 30.05.2023; respectively, which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed lower appellate discussion.

4.

The assessee has first of all sought to raise his additional ground(s) that once the learned Assessing Officer had admittedly issued his as many penalties show- cause notices u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act not specifying any specific limb as to whether the assessee had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of taxable income, thereunder, his failure to this effect vitiates the entire proceedings. The Revenue on the other hand has vehemently objected to admission of the assessee’s instant additional ground at this belated stage. I am of the 2 | P a g e considered view that hon’ble apex court landmark decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has settled the issue long back in assessee’s favour and against the department that the tribunal could very well entertain such an additional ground to determine correct tax liability provided all the relevant facts forming part of the record. It is made clear that the Revenue has nowhere disputed the contents of the learned Assessing Officer’s show-cause notice dated 30.03.2015 herein.

6.

Faced with this situation, I admit the assessee’s instant additional ground and 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 has not specified the corresponding limb in his penalty show- cause notice forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty(ies) proceedings itself. Ordered accordingly.

7.

All other pleadings on merit in the assessee’s instant three appeals stand rendered academic.

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 →