M/S SOLITAIRIAN BUILDINFRA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

Date of hearing: 07/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 14/01/2026 ORDER

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:

1. That having to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs.5,45,940/- u/s 271(1)(c) and passing the impugned penalty order and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per and without complying with the mandatory conditions laid down under the said section.

2. That having to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs.5,45,940/- and passing the impugned penalty order being illegal and void ab-initio and without obtaining the valid approval from the competent authority in accordance with law.

3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs.5,45,940/- u/s 271(1)(c ), is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and without granting adequate opportunity of hearing and without observing the principles of natural justice.

4. That having to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs.5,45,940/- u/s 271(1)(c) and passing the impugned penalty order and that too without recording the mandatory ‘satisfaction’ as per law and without levying a clear charge whether there was ‘ concealment of income or ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’.

5. That having to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty and passing penalty order and that too without the valid approval of Ld. JCIT.

6. That having to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned penalty order which is barred by limitation.

7. That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal

at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 19-12-2016 at the premises of the assessee comprising M/s SSG Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Harjeet Singh Sahni and Smt. Rummy Sahni at A-56 Sector 136 Noida. During the search & seizure proceedings various incriminating documents belonging to the assessee were found and seized. Notice under section 153C of the Act was issued on 03-10-2018. In the response of the notice the assessee filed his return of income on 29-10-2018 declaring total income of Rs Nil. There after statuary notices were issued. After considering the submission submitted by the assessee the Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs.43,05,000/- on various heads and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) ( C ) of the Act was initiated. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing officer the assessee filed the appeal which was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) and confirmed the addition made by AO. Notice of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act was issued to the assessee and after considering the submission filed by the assessee the assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs.5,45,940/-. Aggrieved the penalty order the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 09-06-2025 dismissed the appeal, against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.

(v) Nilima Agarwal v. ITO [2025] taxmann.com 59 (Raipur trib) (vi)In the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income –tax v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 597 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: 21. The respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 564 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1) (c ) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241, the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August,2016.