MENORA DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. CIT(A), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6954/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2026AY 2011-125 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 notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act was illegal and bad in law. This was because the notice did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The penalty was sustained by the CIT(A)/NFAC.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if it does not specify the limb under which the penalty is being initiated, i.e., concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SMT RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate
Hearing: 13.04.2026Pronounced: 05.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.6954/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Menora Developers and Vs. CIT(A) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Delhi A-60, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1, Delhi PAN No.AAFCM9587Q

Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocate Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Sh. Shivam Yadav, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 14.08.2025 for the A.Y. 2011-12 in sustaining the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to ground no. 3 of grounds of appeal of the assessee submitted

that the penalty has been initiated vide notice u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act without any specific charge and hence the said notice and the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal and bad in law.

3.

Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Chetan Gupta in ITA No.741/Del/2025 order dated 15.12.2025. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. M/s. Blackrock Securities Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 658/2023 dated 24.11.2023 and the decision in the case of PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal ( 462 ITR 313) (Delhi).

4.

Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the penalty notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 18.03.2024 which is placed at page 70 of the paper book, we find that the notice was issued stating that the assessee has concealed the particular of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of such income, without specifying to which limb the notice has been issued. Identical issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the above referred cases and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a recent judgment of PCIT Vs. Chetan Gupta held as under :-

5.

Respectfully following the said decision we hold that the notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and consequently the penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and void ab-initio and the same is hereby quashed. Ground No.3 of grounds of appeal is allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RENU JAUHRI] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 05.06.2026

NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

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 →