Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Dcit, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs Ambience Hotels And Resorts Pvt. Ltd., ... on 31 December, 2024
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
DELHI BENCH: 'A' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos. 2099, 2100 & 2101/Del/2023
Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16
DCIT, Vs. Ambience Hotels and Resorts
Central Circle-20, Pvt. Ltd.,
Delhi L-4, Green Park Extension,
Green Park Market,
South West Delhi,
Delhi
PAN :AADCA7906K
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CA
Department by Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Date of hearing 31.12.2024
Date of pronouncement 31.12.2024
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
These Revenue's three appeals ITA No.2099/Del/2023, 2100/Del/2023 and 2101/Del/2023 for assessment years 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, arise against the CIT(A)-27, New Delhi's common order dated 31.05.2023 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi- 27/10206/2012-13; 27/10842/2013-14 & 27/10400/2014-15, respectively, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
ITA No. 2099, 2100 & 2101/Del/2023
3. Coming to the Revenue's identical sole substantive ground raised in all the three appeals seeking to revive the Assessing Officer's action levying the corresponding section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.2,87,54,268/-; Rs. 3,18,81,392 and Rs.3,94,59,231/- for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively in assessee's hands. We note that there arises the first and fundamental issue of the validity of the proceedings itself as the corresponding as many show-cause notices, all dated 03.01.2022, had admittedly not specified as to whether it was an instance of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income thereof, as the case may be.
4. This being the fundamental issue going to the root of the matter, the Revenue vehemently argues that the assessee not having declared the corresponding rental income in its own hands, attracts both the foregoing limbs; and therefore, we ought to reverse the CIT(A)'s lower appellate findings.
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the instant first and foremost legal issue and see no merit in the Revenue's vehement contentions. We make it clear first of all that the assessee has duly placed on record all the relevant three penalty show-cause
2|Page ITA No. 2099, 2100 & 2101/Del/2023 notices herein at pages 83, 88 and 59 of the paper-book compiled assessment year-wise to this clinching effect. We accordingly quote PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal, 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del); PCIT Vs. Sahara Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 432 ITR 82 (Del) and Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT ( 2021 ) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB) to conclude that such a failure at the learned Assessing Officer's behest in not specifying the corresponding limb(s) in section 271(1)(c) show- cause notice indeed vitiates the entire proceedings itself. We accordingly uphold the learned CIT(A)'s action on this first and foremost legal issue in assessee's favour and against the department.
6. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
7. These Revenue's three appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st December, 2024 at the time of conclusion of hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
(M. BALAGANESH) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 31st December, 2024.
RK/-
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
3|Page