NAMDEO VITTHAL KHATALE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(3), PUNE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that mere addition to income does not automatically warrant a penalty for concealment. The reasoning of the CIT(A) for confirming the penalty was found unsustainable in law.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file a return of income and respond to notices. During assessment, the AO found undisclosed income from property sale and added it. Subsequently, a penalty was levied for concealment of income.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied solely based on an addition sustained in the quantum appeal without further evidence of concealment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 139,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 14.11.2018 for the assessment year 2010-11 confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.2,50,000/-.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and had not filed the return of income u/s 139 of the 2 Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) nor responded to notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the appellant along with two others, namely, Shri Harishchandra V. Khatale and Shri Kisan V. Khatale entered into an agreement for sale of property situated at Igatpuri, Nashik for sum of Rs.65,36,000/- and the appellant had received his share of consideration of Rs.12,50,000/- and had not disclosed the share of consideration in the return of income nor cooperated with the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Nashik (‘the Assessing Officer’) completed the assessment vide order dated 26.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act by bringing to tax the consideration of Rs.12,50,000/-. Even on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of the Assessing Officer was confirmed. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act holding that the assessee is guilty for concealment of particulars of income and levied a penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- vide order dated 29.09.2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
More judgments on Section 139
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026