PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

432 ITR 84High Court2021#515 most cited

What is PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer's failure to specify the exact limb (i.e., concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) vitiates the entire penalty proceedings.

185

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · penalty show-cause notice · specifying limb · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · vitiates penalty proceedings · Section 270A · 270AA immunity

Also reported as

108 Taxmann.com 597

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 153ASection 250Section 147Section 270AA
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 270(a)record dateimmunity under section 270aasection 270a(8)section 270aasection 270a(6)section 271(l)(c)section 271(l)section 270a(9)section 274penalty u/s 270afurnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sahajiv Rattan, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5885/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ch, 2015 without cancelling any of the twin limbs in the penalty notice. He submitted that the issue is clearly covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Sahara Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. (432 ITR 84) (Del). He referred to para No. 21 of the said order. 6. The ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the ordes of the lower authorities. We have also perused the penalty notice dated 30th March, 2015 wherein the penalty was initiated without striking any of the twin li…

Honest Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1620/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Vasundhara Upmanyu, [CIT] – DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…obviously the ld AO has not cancelled any of twin limbs on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied. The above issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in case of PrCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Corporation, 432 ITR 84 wherein, it has been held that in para 21 that notice issued by the ld AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As the above decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court…

Action Construction Equipment Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 641/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Action Construction Vs Dcit, Equipment Ltd.Kashyap & Co. Central Circle-1, Chartered Accountants, 214, Complex, Nh-Iv, Citi Centre, Begum Bridge Nit, Faridabad. Road, Meerut, (U.P.)-250001 Pan-Aaaca6189P Appellant Respondent

Section 153A(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…he same has been imposed without specifying the charge. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of PCIT vs Sahara Life Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 432 ITR 84. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submission, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Revenue has not controverted the fact that the facts are identical as were in the Assessment Year 201…

Sh. Satinder Pal Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6454/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos. 6453, 6454 & 6455/Del/2016 (Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Sh. Satinder Pal Singh Vs. Acit, D-97, Defence Colony, Central Circle – 3, New Delhi – 110024 New Delhi Pan No. Aaaps 4461 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri H. K. Chaudhary, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021 Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Case File Reveals That There Was No Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee In The Past. Even On The Date Of Hearing, None

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…which limb the penalty is proposed to be imposed, it would lead to an inference as to non application of mind, thus vitiating imposition of penalty. 10. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del), after considering the decision in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) & CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar) [where the SLP filed by Revneue was dismissed and reported in (2016) 386 ITR (ST) 13 (SC)] has held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not leviable when the notice issu…

Sh. Satinder Pal Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6453/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos. 6453, 6454 & 6455/Del/2016 (Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Sh. Satinder Pal Singh Vs. Acit, D-97, Defence Colony, Central Circle – 3, New Delhi – 110024 New Delhi Pan No. Aaaps 4461 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri H. K. Chaudhary, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021 Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Case File Reveals That There Was No Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee In The Past. Even On The Date Of Hearing, None

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…which limb the penalty is proposed to be imposed, it would lead to an inference as to non application of mind, thus vitiating imposition of penalty. 10. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del), after considering the decision in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) & CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar) [where the SLP filed by Revneue was dismissed and reported in (2016) 386 ITR (ST) 13 (SC)] has held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not leviable when the notice issu…