आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी (cid:874)वजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं (cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, लेखा सदè य के सम¢ ।

BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष(cid:91)/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10)

Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), PAN: ABLPA2822L Hyderabad.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)(cid:464)रती (cid:622)वारा/Assessee by:

राजè व (cid:622)वारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Date of hearing:

02/02/2026 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Pronouncement:

11/02/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

The captioned three appeals are filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), all dated 25.11.2024 for the A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 and A.Y.2009-10 respectively. Since all these three appeals are related to the same assessee and the issues involved are identical, they are heard together and one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA No. 126/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2007-08 :

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not sustainable in law that the notice was lacking recording of mandatory satisfaction of specific default on the part of the appellant i.e., concealment of any particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income and penalty levied is of Rs.1,79,230/-

3. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing with the leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) levied a penalty of Rs.1,79,230/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the assessee for the Assessment Year 2007–08 vide order dated 28.11.2023. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee did not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A), and the appeal was dismissed, thereby confirming the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Under Ground No.2 of the appeal, the assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the very validity of the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the show cause notice issued by the Ld. AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2010 (“SCN”) is invalid in law, as the Ld. AO failed to specify the exact limb under which the penalty proceedings were sought to be initiated. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the SCN, wherein the Ld. AO has merely stated that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. According to the Ld. AR, the SCN suffers from vagueness, as the Ld. AO did not strike off the irrelevant portion nor clearly specify whether the penalty was proposed for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was submitted that both limbs under section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different connotations and consequences, and the assessee must be made aware of the exact charge so as to enable him to defend effectively. The Ld. AR contended that such non-specification of charge vitiates the entire penalty proceedings, and consequently, the penalty order passed pursuant thereto is liable