M/S.ALLIED DIGITAL SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 8147/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 February 2026AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a defective notice, which fails to specify the exact charge or limb for penalty proceedings, vitiates the penalty levy. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The AO issued a notice for penalty that did not specify the exact limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) under which the penalty was being levied.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied based on a notice under Section 274 that does not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 12.02.2026Pronounced: 26.02.2026

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 11.07.2025, impugned herein, passed by Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) for the A.Y. 20101-11. 2. In the instant case, the AO vide assessment order dated 28.03.2013 under Section 143 (3) r.w.s. 153(A) of the Act has made the additions of Rs.5,35,91,882/- and Rs.1,25,66,049/- on account of disallowances under Section 69C of the Act and Section 2 M/s. Al

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

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 →