PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. SARA SAE PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 109 / 2023HC Delhi24 February 20232 pages
For Petitioner: PUNEET RAI
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that the appeal papers contained errors and granted liberty to correct them. The court noted that a similar issue regarding the validity of penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) was pending before a coordinate bench.

What were the facts?

The Revenue sought to appeal a decision concerning the validity of a penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The notice did not specify under which limb (concealment or inaccurate particulars) the penalty was being levied.

What were the issues?

The key issue is whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the Section 274 notice fails to specify the limb under 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

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 109/2023 & CM APPL. 8844-8845/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Ashvini Kumar & Ms Madhavi Shukla, Standing Counsels & Mr Nikhil Jain, Advocate.

versus

SARA SAE PVT LTD

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

O R D E R %

24.02.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPL. 8844/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ITA 109/2023 & CM APPL. 8845/2023[Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 56 days in filing the appeal] 2. Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that some errors have crept in the appeal papers, which need to be corrected. 2.1 Liberty in that behalf is granted. 3. We may note that the broad issue which arises for consideration is: whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, „Act‟] could be levied by the Assessing Officer (AO), in view of the notice issued under Section 274 of the Act not referring to the limb under which the penalty notice had been issued. ITA 109/2023

1/2 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 13:12:37

3.1 There are two limbs under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are: (i) concealed particulars of income; or (ii) furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 4. According to the appellant/revenue, this is a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. It seems that a coordinate bench of this court [which included Rajiv Shakdher J.] has taken a view with regard to this issue, via judgement dated 12.07.2022, in ITA 57/2021, titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. Ms. Minu Bakshi. 5.1. We are told that a matter raising similar issue i.e., ITA 90/2020 is listed on 15.03.2023. 6. Accordingly, list the above-captioned matter on the same date i.e., 15.03.2023.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

FEBRUARY 24, 2023/ ha

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 109/2023

2/2 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 13:12:37

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 →