UNITECH ACACIA PROJECTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for which penalty has been levied. The notice has (AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14) been issued in an omnibus performa without striking off irrelevant clause of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This makes the notice ambiguous and defective. No penalty can be levied on the basis of defective notice

UNITECH HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for which penalty has been levied. The notice has (AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14) been issued in an omnibus performa without striking off irrelevant clause of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This makes the notice ambiguous and defective. No penalty can be levied on the basis of defective notice

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

253 ITR 630 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further, in any case, it is well settled that that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in a case where a substantial question of law is framed and admitted by the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

253 ITR 630 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further, in any case, it is well settled that that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in a case where a substantial question of law is framed and admitted by the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

253 (P & H) The Id. D.R relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that as per the settled position of law, the objection raised by the Id. A.R during the course of hearing of the appeal as regards the validity of the 15 | P a g e jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty 271

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI vs. POLYPLEX CORPORATION LIMITED., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

section 271(1)(c) are clearly not attracted in this case. In view thereof, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.60,11,830/- is deleted. The grounds of appeal are ruled in favour of the appellant.” 9. From the above finding of Ld.CIT(A), it is evident that at the time of filing

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

253) wherein the Hon'ble Court has answered the issue of reference as follows: - Answers: Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate the penalty proceedings

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

section 271(1)(c) for imposing the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3 2281/Del/2014 & C.O. No. 204.Del.14 M/s Kostub Investment Ltd. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that the assessee had filed the objections at a belated stage, therefore, there is an objection by the Registry

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

253 (P&H) The ld. DR relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that as per the settled position of law, the objection raised by the Id. A.R during the course of hearing of the appeal as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty 271 (1 )(c) was not admissible and thus no cognizance

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED MBD HOUSE, GULAB BHAWAN BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1) NEW DELHI, JAO DCIT 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately as the undersigned is satisfied of the fact of furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income in the case as referred in para no.3.7, 4.4. 5.9 and 6.3.” 9.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the AO has initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income

VATIKA HOTELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 1763/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 Vatika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, बनाम 621A, Devika Towers, Central Circle : 8, Vs. 6 – Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 019. Pan No. Aabci2522B अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- i) Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom) (F; ii) PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.); iii) CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.); & 4. Referring to the above judgments

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THAPAR HOMER LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishradcit, Central Circle- M/S. Thapar Homes 15 Limited, B-10, Vs Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 Pan No:Aaecm0840R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 275(1)(a) of the Act would be applicable to the facts of the case or provision of section 275(1)(c) has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Hissaria Bros. (2007) 211 CTR Raj 156, 2007 291 ITR 244 Raj and following had been held

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SUBHASH TYAGI PROP. M/S KRISHANA CONSTRUCTION, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

253(4) of the Act. 2. All the captioned Appeals and Cross Objection being inter- connected, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No.1044/Del/2021 (Assessee’s Appeal) & Cross objection 59/Del/2023 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a proprietor of ‘M/s Krishna Constructions’ and is engaged in the business of construction and related activities

SHRI SUBHASH TYAGI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

253(4) of the Act. 2. All the captioned Appeals and Cross Objection being inter- connected, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No.1044/Del/2021 (Assessee’s Appeal) & Cross objection 59/Del/2023 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a proprietor of ‘M/s Krishna Constructions’ and is engaged in the business of construction and related activities

RAMESH KUMAR,KARNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KARNAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1279/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2012-13) Ramesh Kumar, House No.2027, Opposite Civil Hospital, Nissing, Karnal, Haryana 132024 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Azopk-6953-F बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Sector 12, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Karnal, Haryana 132001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri R R Singla, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 20/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 04.01.2025, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri R R Singla, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That In Assessment Proceedings U/S. 144/147 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Addition Was Made On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits Of Rs.28,50,000/- In Punjab National Bank, Karnal. The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Notices U/S. 148 Of The Act As Parallel Proceedings U/S. 148 R.W.S.

penalty is to be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In notice both limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are mentioned with conjunction ‘or'. The AO has not struck off irrelevant matter in the notice. This makes the notice ambiguous and defective. Any proceedings arising out of such defective notice are vitiated. The Full Bench

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. OPG SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition enhanced by him being the additions made / modified/ enhanced on the basis of alleged data in Excel worksheets retrieved from laptop as well as recreated 48 ledgers / parties, does not qualify to admit as an "evidence" under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” 10. The issue involved