VIRTUAL GALAXY INFOTECH LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

ITA 578/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 August 2026AY 2014-159 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the returned income is accepted without any variation. The mere fact that the return was filed in response to a notice under Section 148 does not automatically imply concealment of income.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file its original return of income but disclosed income of Rs. 1,66,85,150/- in response to a notice issued under Section 148. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment accepting the returned income without any additions. Subsequently, a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the income disclosed in the belated return is accepted by the Assessing Officer without any additions. Whether non-filing of the original return of income by itself constitutes concealment of income attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 11.06.2026Pronounced: 10.08.2026

PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 25/03/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is emanating from the penalty order dated 26.01.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. This appeal is barred by limitation by 115 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay, stating that the delay occurred on account of suffering from hypertension and anxiety during the relevant period. Considering the reasons stated in the application, and being satisfied that the delay was neither deliberate n

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →