IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4174/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2017-18] ITA No. 4175/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2019-20]

The Dy. CI.T. Vs. Ajay Vision Education [P] Ltd Delhi 1/8, Apsara Arcade, Pusa Road New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN: AALCA 5895 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gupta, CA Department By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :-

The above captioned four appeals by the Revenue are directed against four separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), Delhi dated 30.03.2025 for A.Y 2016-17 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for The Dy. CI.T.Vs. Ajay Vision Education [P] Ltd short] and u/s 270A for A.Ys u/s 2018-19, 2017-18 and 2019-20 respectively.

2. Since these appeals pertain to same assessee and involve common issues, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA No. 4172/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2016-17]

3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not specified the charge in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act.

4. The roots for levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 30.03.2023 for AY 2016-17 framed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act by which the unrecorded cash income to the tune of Rs. 98,59,655/- was disallowed for penalty purpose and added to the income of the assessee. 5. The entire quarrel in all these four appeals of the Revenue revolves around the penalty notice, which according to the assessee, does not specify the limb under which the penalty is levied. The penalty orders were challenged by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and the The Dy. CI.T.Vs. Ajay Vision Education [P] Ltd ld. CIT(A), vide appellate order dated 30.03.2025 came to the conclusion that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained either on legal grounds, jurisdictional grounds or on merits and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

6. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A) whereas the ld. DR relied upon the penalty order and contended that the additions were made on the basis of search and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanna Duggar 373 ITR 681 wherein the hon’ble court dismissed the SLP filed against the Calcutta High Court in 371 ITR 19(Cal).

7. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused. We find that the notice u/s 274 r.w..s 271(1)(c) of the Act which was issued and served upon the assessee read as under:

"Notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Sir Madam Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year 2016-17, It appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of income. You are hereby requested to appear before me either personally or through a duly authorised representative at 11:00 AM on 05/05/2023 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through athorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

8. On such facts the CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding as under:

The Dy. CI.T.Vs. Ajay Vision Education [P] Ltd

4.2.12 Issue of Notice:

4.2.12.1 The Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 274 proposing for levy of penalty for concealment of particulars of income. From the reading of the assessment order paragraph No.15, the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount wh