RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 3447/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 October 2025AY 2021-2222 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was infructuous and bad in law because it failed to specify the limb for imposing the penalty. Consequently, the penalty order, which was based on this notice, was also set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges a penalty order under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) despite the assessee arguing that the show-cause notice for the penalty did not specify the limb under which it was being imposed.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 270A is valid if the show-cause notice fails to specify the limb (under-reporting or misreporting) under which the penalty is proposed. Whether penalty proceedings can be initiated when the quantum addition is still under appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, ‘E’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Paras Dawar, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.10.2025Pronounced: 27.10.2025

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 31.03.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, in Appeal No. NFAC/2020-21/10263604, arising out of penalty order dated 16.06.2023 passed u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Contesting the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 31.03.2025 confirming penalty u/s 270A imposed by the ld. AO amounting to Rs.19,40,453/-, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and facts in confirming penalty imposed under section 270A of the Act d

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 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →