VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

270A are invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act. In other words, the Ld. Counsel submits that the AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

270A are invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act. In other words, the Ld. Counsel submits that the AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

270A are invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act. In other words, the Ld. Counsel submits that the AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

270A are invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act. In other words, the Ld. Counsel submits that the AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings

SOREGAM SA ,BELGIUM vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

270A are invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act. In other words, the Ld. Counsel submits that the AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

u/s 270A of the Act are highly vague in as much as they do not state as to which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

u/s 270A dated 16.06.2023 imposing penalty of Rs.19,21,517/-. 5. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. At this stage, we deem it necessary to reproduce the statutory provisions of section 270A of the Act “270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or 94[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal

ATMA RAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

270A of the Act for misreporting. Thus, the assessment order was passed making addition of Rs. 11,98,885/-. The total income was determined Rs. 13,65,92,825/- in the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 6. The assessment record in this case was examined by the Ld. PCIT, and it was noticed that

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

270A of the Act in the said quantum assessment order itself, no penalty order per se was passed by the ld AO. Since, no appeal has been filed by the assessee against the quantum assessment order, the penalty order ought to have been passed by the ld AO on or before 30.06.2020 in terms of section

DCIT, DELHI vs. AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

270A for A.Ys u/s 2018-19, 2017-18 and 2019-20 respectively. 2. Since these appeals pertain to same assessee and involve common issues, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 4172/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2016-17] 3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the Revenue

DCIT, DELHI vs. AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

270A for A.Ys u/s 2018-19, 2017-18 and 2019-20 respectively. 2. Since these appeals pertain to same assessee and involve common issues, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 4172/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2016-17] 3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the Revenue

DCIT, DELHI vs. AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

270A for A.Ys u/s 2018-19, 2017-18 and 2019-20 respectively. 2. Since these appeals pertain to same assessee and involve common issues, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 4172/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2016-17] 3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the Revenue

DCIT, DELHI vs. AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

270A for A.Ys u/s 2018-19, 2017-18 and 2019-20 respectively. 2. Since these appeals pertain to same assessee and involve common issues, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 4172/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2016-17] 3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the Revenue

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. JAINA MARKETING AND ASSOCIATES

u/s 270A of the Act by the A.O levying penalty for 'mis-reporting of income’. The various High Courts and Benches of the Tribunal repeatedly held that the defective penalty notice issued by the Department without mentioning the proper limbs and details will be fatal to the entire penalty proceeding. 8. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

UJALA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,NSP PITAMPURA DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 43(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT [2007] 27 SCC 181, in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani