NAGAIAH KEKKIRENI,SURYAPET vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the core issue of the addition itself was admitted by the High Court for substantial question of law, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. The penalty was directed to be vacated.
What were the facts?
The assessee purchased land for Rs. 42.84 lakhs, but the source of funds was not adequately explained. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition for this unexplained investment and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the underlying addition is under challenge before the High Court and the appeal has been admitted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 260A,Section 43CA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- PCIT v. Harsh International Pvt. Ltd.18 citing431 ITR 118 · 2021 · HC
- CIT v. H.B. Leasing & Financing Co. Ltd.7 citing334 ITR 367 · 2011 · HC
- 20 Taxmann.com 1903 citing20 Taxmann.com 190 · 2012
- 211 Taxmann 1323 citing211 Taxmann 132
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. �नधा�रती/The : Nagaiah Kekkireni, 1-1-109/A, Thallagadda Suryapet-508213, Telangana. Assessee 2. राज�व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet, Telangana. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण /DR,ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गाड�फ़ाईल / Guard file
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- M/S.Redington Distribution Pte Ltd… vs ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), ChennaiChennai29 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Harsh International Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. It reasoned that the PE's existence was assumed for settlement purposes under MAP, and there was no conclusive proof or corroborative...
- Poonam Gupta, Gwalior vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Agra24 Apr 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Harsh International Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that since the addition of Rs. 70,14,083/- confirmed by the ITAT has been challenged before the High Court and the appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law, the issue is debatable. Therefore,...
- Moni Kumar Subba, New Delhi vs ACIT Central Circle-08, New DelhiDelhi5 Sept 2024Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Harsh International Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified because the issue of capital gains determination was highly debatable, as evidenced by the Delhi High Court admitting a substanti...
- Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt Ltd, New… vs ACIT Central Circle-26, New DelhiDelhi10 Aug 2023Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Harsh International Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable because the AO's notice was vague and the quantum addition was significantly altered to an estimated basis. The fact that substantial questions of law were admitted by...
- Hcl Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs DCIT, New DelhiDelhi16 Aug 2021Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Harsh International Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that merely preferring a claim that is unacceptable to the Revenue does not automatically lead to a penalty. The penalty was deemed unsustainable as the claim was based on material furnished by the asse...
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
