KRISHNA DEVI (INDIVUDUAL),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44(1), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was indeed vague and did not specify the exact charge under Section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the show cause notice for the penalty was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the show cause notice is vague and does not specify the exact charge of concealment 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(2)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. SSA’s Emerald Meadows953 citing73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · SC
- CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows791 citing73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI
This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, Dated 09.10.2018, for the A.Y. 2013-2014, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the findings of the authorities below.
The assessee filed the written statement stating therein that notice under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act as 2 ITA.No.8020/Del./2018 Smt. Krishna Devi (Individual), New Delhi. enclosed Dated 26.08.2016 did not specify the exact charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In these circumstances, notice is vague and liable to be set aside. The assessee relied upon the Order of ITAT, Delhi C-Bench in the case of Bharat Immunological and Biological Corporation Ltd., vs. DCIT [2019] 72 ITR (Trib.) (S.N.) 5 (Delhi). Copy of the Order is filed.
On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that failure of the A.O. to strike-off column in show cause notice is no ground for deleting the penalty. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Order of ITAT, Chennai Bench reported in TS-289-ITAT- 2019-CHNY.
I have considered the rival submissions. The A.O. issued show cause notice before levy of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, Dated 26.08.2016 in which the A.O. has mentioned as under :
3 ITA.No.8020/Del./2018 Smt. Krishna Devi (Individual), New Delhi. “Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of Explanation 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.”
5.1. These facts, therefore, clearly show that notice issued by the A.O. for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act to be bad in law as it did not specify in which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The entire penalty proceedings are, therefore, vitiated and no penalty is leviable. On this score itself, similar view is taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. SSAs Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241 and this decision is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 73 taxmann.com 248. Further, the ITAT, Delhi Benches are taking a consistent view that in such circumstances, levy of penalty is invalid. Since the show cause notice is invalid due to the above reason and as such the entire penalty proceedings are vitiated. Thus, no penalty is leviable against the assessee. The decisions relied upon
4 ITA.No.8020/Del./2018 Smt. Krishna Devi (Individual), New Delhi. by the Ld. D.R. would not support the case of the Revenue, In view of the above, I set aside the Orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty.
In the result, appeal of assessee allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Winwood Marketing Private Limited, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 6(2), KolkataKolkata5 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was vague as it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribuna...
- Ramesh Chowdhury, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 31(4), KolkataKolkata28 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was vague. The notice mentioned "have concealed the particulars of your income", while the Assessing Officer's ord...
- Vishal Osatwal, Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., Circle - 29(1), KolkataKolkata10 Dec 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it was issued in a mechanical manner, without striking off the irrelevant limbs or specifying whether the penalty was for concealme...
- Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), KolkataKolkata13 Nov 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows and 1 other authority
The Tribunal found that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was vague, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on bin...
- Amritabhagwati Tradewing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), MumbaiMumbai17 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows and 1 other authority
The Tribunal found that the penalty notices under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) mechanically referred to "concealing of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars" without specifying the exact limb. Cit...
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 →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
