MAHAVIR SINGH ,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), HARYANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings are vitiated because the Assessing Officer's show-cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) did not specify the limb under which the penalty was being proposed. This failure renders the penalty invalid.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal pertains to a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2014-15. The lower authorities held that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income regarding short-term capital gains from a joint development agreement.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are vitiated if the Assessing Officer's show-cause notice fails to specify the limb 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(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.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.185 citing432 ITR 84 · 2021 · HC · Read judgment
- PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT v. Gopal Kumar Goyal38 citing153 Taxmann.com 534 · 2023 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Mahavir Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-75, M2K County, Sector-5, Ward-2(4), Dharuhera, Distt. Rewari, Gurugram, Haryana-123106 Haryana-122016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CROPS8928J Assessee by : Sh. R. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Arvind Kumar Trivedi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.01.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon’s case No. 133/17-18 dated 25.07.2018, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have furnished it’s inaccurate particulars of income regarding short term capital gains arising from a joint development Mahavir Singh agreement, to levy section 271(1)(c) penalty in question amounting to Rs.12,77,097/- vide Assessing Officer’s order dated 29.06.2017 which stands upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion.
The assessee has first of all sought to raise the additional ground(s) that once the learned Assessing Officer had admittedly issued his penalty show-cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act not specifying any specific limb thereunder, his failure to this effect vitiates the entire proceedings. The Revenue on the other hand has vehemently objected to admission of the assessee’s instant additional ground at this belated stage. We are of the considered view that hon’ble apex court landmark decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has settled the issue long back in assessee’s favour and against the department that the tribunal could very well entertain such an additional ground to determine correct tax liability provided all the relevant facts form part of the record. We make it clear that the Revenue has nowhere disputed the contents of the learned Assessing Officer’s show-cause notice dated 26.07.2017 herein.
Mahavir Singh 5. Faced with this situation, we admit the assessee’s instant additional ground and quote PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) to conclude that once the learned Assessing Officer has not specified the corresponding limb in his penalty show-cause notice forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty proceedings itself. We order accordingly.
All other pleadings in merit in the assessee’s instant appeal stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27/01/2025.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Karnal Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd, Karnal vs ACIT Circle, KarnalDelhi14 Oct 2025Allowed
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.
- Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, HaryanaDelhi12 Sept 2025Allowed
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and bad in law because they did not specify the exact charge (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, or under-reporting vs. misreporting of income). Follow...
- Arun Dwivedi, Delhi vs ACIT, Circle-9(2), DelhiDelhi22 Aug 2025Allowed
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. This failure to specify renders the notice and subsequent penalty or...
- Anil Kumar Lakhina, New Delhi vs ACIT, Circle-30(1), New DelhiDelhi9 Apr 2024Allowed
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it failed to specify the exact limb under which the penalty was being initiated. This failure to specify th...
- Parveen Tayal, Faridabad Haryana vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central…Delhi20 Nov 2025Allowed
The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the exact ground for levying the penalty (concealment or inaccurate particulars) vitiated the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal found merit in the as...
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026