IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Years:2013-14 to 2017-18 SHRI VINOD JINDAL, बनाम DCIT, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, SRS Pearl Heights, Faridabad.

Sector-87, Faridabad.

PAN No.AENPJ1202Q अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant (cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent Assessee by Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR सनु वाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 28.08.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH The appeals in ITA 1918 to 1921/Del/2025 are filed by the assessee against the order u/s 250 of the Act, NFAC, Delhi dated 28.01.2025 for the AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 in sustaining the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeal in ITA No.1923/Del/2025 is filed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act for AY 2017-18.

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 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 had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or whether for under reporting or misreporting of income . Therefore, it is submitted that in the absence of specific charge in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the said notice is bad in law and consequently the penalty order is bad in law. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: -

1. CIT s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (242 Taxman 180) (SC);

2. PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (153 taxmann.com 534) (Del);

3. PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited 432 ITR

84 (Del);

4. Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. vs. ACIT (145 Taxmann.com 665) (Del.)

5. Manish Manohardas Asrani vs. Int. Tax (170 taxmann.com 792)

(Mumbai – Trib.)

3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

4. Heard rival submissions. On perusal of the penalty notices issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act, we observe that the notices were issued mechanically stating that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, under reported/misreported the income. The AO failed to specify the exact limb for which the notice was issued. In other words, the AO did not specify the specific charge for which the penalty proceedings were initiated i.e. either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, whether for under reporting or misreporting of income.

5. We observed that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (73 taxmann.com 241) by relying on its earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) held that notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Against this decision the Revenue filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs.

SSA’s Emerald Meadows (73 taxmann.com 248) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue.

6. We observe that an identical issue came up before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [434 ITR (1)] and the Hon’ble High Court held as under:

"Question No.1: If the assessment order clearly rec