SOREGAM SA,BELGIUM vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONTAX GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 1918/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 April 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SH. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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). Following various High Court and ITAT decisions, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against penalty orders levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was that the penalty proceedings were initiated and levied without specifying the exact limb of the respective sections under which the penalty was being imposed.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty proceedings initiated and levied without specifying the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) or Section 270A are valid. Whether a vague penalty notice vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 270A,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(12)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, DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI M BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.08.2025

PER BENCH

The appeals in ITA 1918 to 1921/Del/2025 are filed by the assessee against the order u/s 250 of the Act, NFAC, Delhi dated 28.01.2025 for the AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 in sustaining the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The appeal in ITA No.1923/Del/2025 is filed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act for AY 2017-18. SHRI VINOD JINDAL

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 270A are invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty

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 →