PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. CHETAN GUPTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 210 / 2023HC Delhi12 April 20232 pages
For Petitioner: RUCHIR BHATIA
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The ITAT set aside the penalty because the Assessing Officer did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was levied. The High Court noted that this issue might be covered by a previous judgment.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order that set aside a penalty of Rs. 1,66,16,677. The penalty was imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if the Assessing Officer fails to specify whether it's for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 210/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –

CENTRAL -1

.... Appellant

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing

Counsel.

versus

CHETAN GUPTA

..... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

12.04.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM no.17391/2023 1. This is an application filed by the appellant/revenue for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is delay of 262 days. 2. Issue notice to the respondent/assessee via all permissible modes, including e-mail. ITA 210/2023 3. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2005-2006 and is directed against the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 3.1 The Tribunal, via the impugned order, has set aside the penalty levied on the respondent/assessee amounting to Rs.1,66,16,677/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [In ITA 210/2023

Page 1 of 2

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:02:53

short, “Act”] on the ground that the concerned officer did not indicate under which limb of the said provision, the penalty was leviable on the respondent/ assessee. 4. Concededly, there are two limbs under which penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. The issue, prima facie, seems to be covered by the judgment rendered on 12.07.2021 in ITA No. 57/2011, titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Minu Bakshi. 6. Issue notice. 7. The order passed today shall accompany the notice which is directed to be served on the respondent/assessee. 8. List the matter on 18.09.2023.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J APRIL 12, 2023/tp

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 210/2023

Page 2 of 2

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:02:53

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 →