HARVANSH CHAWLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was bad in law because it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr.CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., the penalty was quashed.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income and subsequently imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee appealed against the penalty, arguing that the notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not specify the exact charge for the penalty.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid when the notice issued by the AO does not specify the exact charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory2,590 citing359 ITR 565 · 2013 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows791 citing73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · HC
- Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT359 citing348 ITR 306 · 2012 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC-1” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
These appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 2008-09 &
2009-10 are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-24, New Delhi
both dated 29.11.2019. 2. Both appeals were taken up together being disposed of by way of a consolidated order. First we take up ITA No.9545/Del/2019
[Assessment Year 2009-10] wherein the assessee has raised following
grounds of appeal:-
1) “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") amounting Rs. 12,80,780/- initiated on the basis of the Notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28-12-2011 issue
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Shri Ajay Mayor, Ahmedabad vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the assessee made full disclosure and took a bona fide legal view on the taxability of the receipt. The issue was also found to be debatable, with a reference to ...
- Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd… vs ACIT, Central Circle-3, DelhiDelhi28 Nov 2025Allowed
Also relies on Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to vague and illegal notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A, which did not specify the charge or the amount of alleged under-reporting. Th...
- D.Senthil Kumar, Chennai vs ACIT, CoimbatoreChennai19 May 2023Allowed
Also relies on Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to frame a specific charge against the assessee in the show-cause notice and the penalty order. Consequently, the penalty was not sustainable in law.
- Raj Kumari Maheshwari, Jaipur vs Dy CIT, CC-II, JaipurJaipur13 Jun 2022Allowed
Also relies on Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated without specifying whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the additions made were based on estimation, an...
- Harvansh Chawla, New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New DelhiDelhi10 May 2021Allowed
Also relies on Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective for not specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Delhi High Court's judgmen...
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
