PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, DELHI V. AMBIENCE HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD.

ITA/230/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department appealing against Ambience Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. concerning penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had earlier quashed the penalty, citing lack of evidence for the required elements of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment. The High Court's decision to dismiss the appeals was influenced by the precedents set in similar cases and the rejection of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against these judgments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834938 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT, PCIT Vs. Sahara Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KUMAIL ABBAS; SAHAR IRFAN; RIYA JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTHA SINHA; EASHA GURUNG
• Keywords: Concealment; Inaccurate particulars of income; Penalty proceedings; Quashed orders
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"$~2 to 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 228/2025 + ITA 229/2025 + ITA 230/2025 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC and Ms. Easha Gurung, JSC versus AMBIENCE HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kumail Abbas, Mr. Sahar Irfan and Ms. Riya Jain, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 05.02.2026 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: ‘A’ New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) while holding the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be illegal, has quashed the orders of the authorities. While doing so, it has found that the basic ingredients for levy of penalty i.e. inaccurate particulars of income or concealment has not been recorded in the penalty order dated 27.01.2023, as held in the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT reported at 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB) and the judgment of this Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara Life Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as 432 ITR 82 (Del). This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 12:28:45 Printed from counselvise.com 2. It is fairly informed by Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel that Special Leave Petition (SLP) against these judgments has been rejected. The Diary no.10953/2024 provided by the Income Tax Department does not match with the parties name as annexed. 3. In view of the aforesaid, since this issue has attained finality, all three appeals are dismissed. DINESH MEHTA, J. VINOD KUMAR, J. FEBRUARY 5, 2026/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 12:28:45 Printed from counselvise.com "