PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, DELHI vs. AMBIENCE HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/228/2025HC DelhiDLHC01042988202505 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal's decision to quash the penalty proceedings was upheld. The High Court noted that the issue had attained finality as the Special Leave Petition against similar judgments was rejected.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal quashed penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, holding them illegal. The Tribunal found that the basic ingredients for levying penalty, such as inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, were not recorded in the penalty order.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were illegal due to the absence of recorded findings regarding inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Whether the issue had attained finality.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

$~2 to 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 228/2025 + ITA 229/2025 + ITA 230/2025 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC and Ms. Easha Gurung, JSC versus AMBIENCE HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kumail Abbas, Mr. Sahar Irfan and Ms. Riya Jain, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

05.02.2026 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: ‘A’ New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) while holding the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be illegal, has quashed the orders of the authorities. While doing so, it has found that the basic ingredients for levy of penalty i.e. inaccurate particulars of income or concealment has not been recorded in the penalty order dated 27.01.2023, as held in the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT reported at 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB) and the judgment of this Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara Life Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as 432 ITR 82 (Del). This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 12:28:47

2.

It is fairly informed by Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel that Special Leave Petition (SLP) against these judgments has been rejected. The Diary no.10953/2024 provided by the Income Tax Department does not match with the parties name as annexed. 3. In view of the aforesaid, since this issue has attained finality, all three appeals are dismissed. DINESH MEHTA, J. VINOD KUMAR, J. FEBRUARY 5, 2026/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 12:28:47

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 →