MOHAMAD SALIM KHAN,ROORKEE vs. CIT(A) & I.T.O ROORKEE, ROORKEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 253/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 April 2026AY 2014-158 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 was defective because it was a stereotype notice without striking off the irrelevant limb, failing to inform the assessee of the specific charge. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, such a notice suffers from vagueness and cannot sustain penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed by the CIT(A). The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) based on an assessment order. The assessee contended that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the charge for which it was issued.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty order is sustainable when the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is a vague, omnibus notice without specifying the charge or limb for which it is issued.

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, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Hearing: 07.04.2026Pronounced: 27.04.2026

1 ITA No 253/DDN/2025 Mohammad Salim Khan Vs. CIT(A)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 253/DDN/2025 ( A.Y 2014-15) Mohammad Salim Khan Vs Union of India/CIT(A)/ITO Pathjanpura Roorkee, District Income Tax Officer, Ayykar HaridwarPAN: ADYPK3527D Bhawa, Civil Lines, Roorkee- (APPLICANT) 247667 (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Tilak Raj, Adv Respondent by Sh. Akash Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.04.2026

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre

(‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 27/10/2025 for the

Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be

passed on 29/12/2016 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for

short) by making certain additions. Pursuant to the same, an order of

penalty has been passed on 04/01/2022 under Section 271(1)(c) of the

Act. Aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 04/01/2022, the Assessee

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order

dated 27/10/2025, dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee. As against

2 ITA No 253/DDN/2025 Mohammad Salim Khan Vs. CIT(A)

the order of Ld.CIT(A) dated 30/07/2017, Assessee has preferred the present

appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently contended that the

penalty proceedings conducted and the order of penalty has been passed

based on the defective notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 271 of the Act

wherein the limb or charge for which the notice was issued has not been

mentioned. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the

penalty order passed based on the defective notice cannot be sustained.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has adjudicated all

the grounds including issuance of alleged defective notice and came to just

conclusion by dismissing the appeal. The Ld. DR has relied on the orders of

the Lower Authorities and submitted that no interference is required.

5.

We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our

thoughtful consideration. The assessee has produced the notice issued u/s

274 read with Section 271 of the Act wherein the ITO has not mentioned the

specific charge or limb for which the notice was issued. The said Notice dated

29/12/2016 is produced by the assessee at Page No. 24 of the paper book

which is reproduced for ready reference.

3 ITA No 253/DDN/2025 Mohammad Salim Khan Vs. CIT(A)

6.

On verifying the above notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 271 of

the Act, it is found that the said notice is stereotype one and the AO has not

specified any limb or charge for which the notice was issued i.e. either for

concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of

such income. It can be seen from the said notice, Assessing Officer did not

strike off irrelevant limb in the notice specifying the charge for which notice

was issued.

4 ITA No 253/DDN/2025 Mohammad Salim Khan Vs. CIT(A)

7.

The identical issue as to whether ‘the order of the penalty is sustainable

which was initiated by issuing a defective notice without striking off irrelevant

limb and without specifying the charge for which notice was issued?’ has been

decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) in the case of

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [434 ITR (1)] and the Hon'ble High Court

held as under:-

"Question No. l: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(l)(c), does a mere defect in the notice--not striking off the irrelevant matter--vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181. It does. The primary burden ties on the Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(l)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. A penalty proceeding is a corollary; nevertheless, it must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate under a different statutory scheme that remains distinct from the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 182. More particularly, a penal provision, even with civil consequences, must be construed strictly. And ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected assessee'sfavour. 183. Therefore, we answer the first question to the effect that Goa Dourado Promotions and other cases have adopted an approach more in consonance with the statutory scheme. That means we must hold that Kaushaiya does not lay down the correct proposition of law. Question No.2: Has Kaushaiya failed to discuss the aspect of 'prejudice?

5 ITA No 253/DDN/2025 Mohammad Salim Khan Vs. CIT(A)

184.

Indeed, Kaushaiya did discuss the aspect of prejudice. As we I.T.A.No.1409/Del/2016 have already noted, Kaushaiya noted that the assessment orders already contained the reasons why penalty should be initiated. So, the assessee, stresses Kaushaiya, "fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him". For Kaushaiya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non- application of mind nor any prejudice. According to it, "the so-called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the piea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice is caused to the concerned person by the procedure followed". Kaushalya doses the discussion by observing that the notice issuing "is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done ", 185. No doubt, there can exist a case where vagueness and ambiguity in the notice can demonstrate non-application of mind by the authority and/or ultimate prejudice to the right of opportunity of hearing contemplated under section 274. So asserts Kaushalya. In fact, for one assessment year, it set aside the penalty proceedings on the grounds of non-application of mind and prejudice. 186. That said, regarding the other assessment year, it reasons that the assessment order, containing the reasons or justification, avoids prejudice to the assessee. That is where, we reckon, the reasoning suffers. Kaushalya's insistence that the previous proceedings supply justification and cure the defect in penalty proceedings has not met our acceptance. Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187. In Dilip N. Shroff, for the Supreme Court, it is of "some significance that in the standard Pro-forma used by the assessing officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done". Then, Dilip N. Shroff, on facts, has felt that the assessing officer himself was not sure whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. 188. We may, in this context, respectfully observe that a contravention of a mandatory condition or requirement for a

6 ITA No 253/DDN/2025 Mohammad Salim Khan Vs. CIT(A)

communication to be valid communication is fatal, with no further proof. That said, even if the notice contains no caveat that the inapplicable portion be deleted, it is in the interest of fairness and justice that the notice must be precise. It should give no room for I.T.A.No.1409/Del/2016 ambiguity. Therefore, Dilip N. Shroff disapproves of the routine, ritualistic practice of issuing omnibus show-cause notices. That practice certainly betrays non application of mind. And, therefore, the infraction of a mandatory procedure leading to penal consequences assumes or implies prejudice. 189. In Sudhir Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court has encapsulated the principles of prejudice. One of the principles is that "where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, "except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest". 190. Here, section 271(l)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT[74], in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei[ 75]. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down on this behalf, compliance with principles of natural justice would be implicit. If a statue contravenes the principles of natural justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. Conclusion: We have, thus, answered the reference as required by us; so we direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 8. As could be seen from the above the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full

Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [(2021) 434

ITR 1 (Bom)] while dealing with the issue of non-strike off of the irrelevant part

7 ITA No 253/DDN/2025 Mohammad Salim Khan Vs. CIT(A)

in the notice issued u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act, held that assessee must be

informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory

notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.

9.

Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa)

squarely applies to the facts of the Assessee’s case as the notice u/s. 274

r.w.s. 271(l)(c) of the Act was issued without striking off the irrelevant portion

of the limb and failed to intimate the assessee the relevant limb and charge for

which the notices were issued.

10.

Thus, by following the above ratio, we are of the opinion that, the

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and the

order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty order are erroneous. Accordingly,

the penalty order dated 04/01/2022 passed by the A.O for Assessment Year

2013-14 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal are

allowed.

11.

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 27th Day of April, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27/04/2026 R. Naheed *

8 ITA No 253/DDN/2025 Mohammad Salim Khan Vs. CIT(A)

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 →