ACIT, NEW DELHI V. SH. SATINDER PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI

MA 277/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Central Circle-3, New Delhi, as the applicant, and Sh. Satinder Pal Singh, the respondent, concerning the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The Revenue filed MAs against a consolidated order that had been previously decided by a Co-ordinate Bench, which found the notices issued under section 274 of the Income Tax Act to be defective. The Revenue contended that the notices were correctly issued, focusing on the 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' under section 271 of the Act. However, the Tribunal upheld the original decision, agreeing with the respondent's argument that the notices did not clearly specify the limb under which the penalty was being levied.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841343 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A.K. ARORA
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. 277, 278 & 279/Del/2023, (Arising out of ITA No. 6453, 6454 & 6455/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi Vs. Sh. Satinder Pal Singh D-97, Defence Colony, New Delhi PAN: AAAPS4461K (Applicant) (Respondent) ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: These MA are filed by the Revenue against the consolidated order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench vide ITA No. 6453, 6454 & 6455/Del/2016 for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. Having similar issues in all the MA’s. 2. It is brought to our notice that the co-ordinate Bench has disposed of the appeal on the basis of defective notice issued u/s 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘The Act’). However, revenue has filed this MA with the submission on the basis that the above said notice both the limbs of clause (c) Applicant by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, CA Respondent by Sh. A.K.Arora, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com MA No.277, 278 & 279/Del/2023 2 of Section 271 of the Act pertaining to ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’ are placed distinct and separately from each other, though a long dotted line drawn between the two. Out of these two separate and distinct limbs, the ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) has ticked (only the first limb which pertained to ‘concealment of income’ and left the second limb as such. Thus, striking off the irrelevant portion of the sentence or marking tick against the relevant part of the sentence in common parlance is understood to have the same meaning and effect and it was prayed that the penalty levied by the Ld. AO is proper and is only for concealment of income. Therefore, it was prayed that the order may be recalled. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the relevant notice issued u/s 274 of the Act and brought to our notice that the Ld. AO has not tick the relevant limb for which proceedings were initiated. Further, he submitted that a consolidated order was passed for three assessment years i.e. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 and revenue has filed three M.As. for the same A.Ys. 4. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record, we observed that the consolidated order was passed for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 with the clear finding that the Ld. AO has issued the notice u/s 274 of the Act without indicating which limb of the penalty proceedings. His proceedings after considering the notice issued by the Ld. AO which was brought to our Printed from counselvise.com MA No.277, 278 & 279/Del/2023 3 notice by the ld. AR, it is clearly a defective notice issued by the Ld. AO. The consolidated order was passed for three years on the same issue and only for one assessment year. The revenue is filed this MA which is not proper. 5. With regard to MA No. 277 & 278/Del/2023, we observed that the issue involved is exactly similar to the facts in MA No. 279/Del/2023. Since, the facts and the findings are applicable mutatis mutandis to MA No. 277 & 278/Del/2023, accordingly, the MA filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, these MAs i.e. 277, 278 & 279/Del/2023 filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 27.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (C.N.PRASAD) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27.02.2026. Binita, Sr.PS Copy forwarded to the: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT/PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. Sr. DR, New Delhi Asstt. Registrar ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "