Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Om Shiv Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

1. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 812 days in refiling the appeals stands condoned.

2. The applications are disposed of. ITA 537/2025; ITA 538/2025; ITA 541/2025; ITA 543/2025;& ITA 548/2025

3. These appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟ in short) lay challenge to the common order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟ in short) in ITAs No.1427/Del/2019; No.1441/Del/2019; No.1437/Del/2019; No.1438/Del/2019; and No.1283/Del/2019; in respect of relevant Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08 and 2008-09.

4. The issue which arises for the consideration in these appeals, is primarily whether the ITAT is justified in allowing the appeals filed by the Assessees‟ / respondents challenging the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act.

5. Mr Indruj Singh Rai, learned Sr Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue fairly states that the issue involved in these appeals is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd; Neutral Citation: 2019:DHC:7413-DB which ratio is also followed by this Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Corteva Agriscience Pvt. Ltd; Neutral Citation No.2025:DHC:7351-DB.

6. He has also drawn our attention to paragraph no.16 onwards in M/s. Corteva Agriscience Pvt. Ltd (supra) to contend that this Court relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd; (supra).

7. This Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Corteva Agriscience Pvt. Ltd (supra) in paragraph no.16 onwards has stated as under:-

penalty imposed under section 271(l)(c) of the Act, which was acceptedby the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241(Kar.), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No.11485 of 2016 by order dated 05th August, 2016”.” (Emphasis supplied)

18. Mr. Singh, counsel for the appellant, fairly concedes to the fact that following Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd (supra), this Court has rendered following judgments holding that a notice issued in the manner issued by the AO in this case under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid: Pr, Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 1 v. M/S Blackroak Securities Pvt. Ltd.; Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC: 8841- DB and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 7 v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd.; Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC: 4258-DB.

19. If that be so, for parity of reasons, we follow the judgment rendered by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-1, New Delhi vs. Genpact Services LLC; Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3420-DB, wherein this Court in paragraphs 8- 11 held as under:

of income.

9. This court has, in a number of decisions, held that the notice, which does not specifically indicate the particular limb of Section 271(1)(c) that is sought to be invoked, would be invalid as being vague.

10. Mr. Rai, the learned counsel for the Revenue, also does not dispute that the issue involved is covered by several decisions of this court including Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gragerious Projects Pvt. Ltd: Neutral Citation; 2024:DHC:9019-DB, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 1 v. M/S Blackroak Securities Pvt. Ltd.: Neutral Citation; 2023:DHC: 8841-DB and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 7 v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd.: Neutral Citation; 2023:DHC: 4258- DB.