“Section 271(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)1,252 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(b) is Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), cited in 502 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b)

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court

502

citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.

228 ITR 463 · 1997 · Supreme Court

262

citing judgments

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma

331 ITR 211 · 2011 · High Court

104

citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

Velu Palandar v. DCIT

83 ITR 683 · 1972 · High Court

citing judgments

The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT

220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO

187 ITD 738 · 2021 · ITAT

citing judgments

The third proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides a tolerance band of 10% between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, is retrospective. This curative and declaratory amendment applies from the date of the insertion of Section 50C.

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa

133 ITR 7 · 1982 · High Court

citing judgments

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT

5 DTR 429 · High Court

citing judgments

To levy a penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer (AO) must record satisfaction in the assessment order. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings without such recorded satisfaction does not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(b)

Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1802/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1802/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, V The Income Tax Officer, C/O. Kapil Horane, S Ward-2, Pandharpur. Chandrabhaga Ghat, Pandharpur, Solapur-413304. Pan: Aadph0707N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandbhor – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 30.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.12.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Appeal(NFAC) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2013-14 dated 30.06.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.12.2021. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under : ITA No.1802/PUN/2025 [A] “1

Sneha Pawan Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1369/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

reopening is therefore invalid and liable to be quashed. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act despite there being no conscious OR deliberate default by the assessee. The non-compliance ... adverse inference drawn is arbitrary and bad in law. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act despite there being no conscious OR deliberate default by the assessee. The non-compliance

Sneha Pawan Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

Cognizance Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 344/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.344/Hyd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year 2013-2014 | M/S. Cognizance | Constructions Private | Limited, Hyderabad. | Pin – 500 075. Telangana. | Pan Aadcc1366M | (Appellant) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Ca Srinivas Maddury राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 13.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short “Nfac], Delhi, For The

For Appellant: CA Srinivas MadduryFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271F

Ld.AO/NFAC erred in law and on facts of the case by initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271A, Section 271(1)(c), section 271(1)(b) and section 271F of the Act. 12. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing with the approval

Mukul Hasteer, Karnal vs. ITO Ward-1, Karnal

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Devraj Vishwasrao Jadhav, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3, Satara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1002/PUN/2025[205-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Gunjan Rungta, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 69

added to the total income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC and submitted before it that

Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

ITA 1199/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai The Dcit 6, Alaknanda Society Circle 1(1)(1) Sama, Vadodara 390 008. Vadodara. Pan : Acppp 2527 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Pate, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Pate, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DR

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(b)Section 54

furnished submissions in response. A further notice under section 142(1) dated 27.10.2017, along with show cause for initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(b), fixed the hearing on 07.11.2017. On that occasion, the authorised representative attended, and the matter was discussed. The Assessing Officer required the assessee

Abdul Ibrahim Patel, Bharuch vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Bharuch (Currently, ITO Ward 1(1) Bharuch), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 630/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Abdul Ibrahim Patel, Ito Ward 1(4) Bharuch Kadri Travel, Near Water Tank, At (Currently, Ito Ward 1(1) & Post Zanor, Vs. Bharuch), Bharuch-392210. Income Tax Office, Station Road, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Afspp 6042 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Krutarth Desai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 69A

before the first appellate authority. Ordinarily, such repeated defaults would 3 Abdul Ibrahim Patel justify the imposition of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(b) or other allied provisions for non-compliance of notices. However, that issue not being before us, we refrain from expressing any conclusive opinion

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Raichur

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (Deceased) by Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1106/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 69Section 69A

deposits and Rs.5,03,511 on account of FDRs and interest, thereby determining the total income at Rs.15,63,511. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) were also initiated for failure to comply with notices, and penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal

Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (Deceased) by Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1105/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 69Section 69A

Babu Singh, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3440/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalbabu Singh, Assessment Unit, 138, Village-Mirzapur, Knp-W-(100) (6), P.O.-Dankaur, Vs. Income Tax Department Distt. Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 203201. Pan-Eakps8485M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Udham Singh, Adv. Department By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 10.03.2025 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10297028 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 20.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed Vide Order Dated 21.03.2023 Passed U/S 147/144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Wherein The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(B) Were Initiated For Non-Compliance Of The Statutory Notices. Thereafter, The Ao Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings U/S Babu Singh Vs. Assessment Unit 271(1)(B) & In Terms Of Order Dated 20.09.2023 Levied Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- For Non-Compliance Of The Statutory Notices Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act On 17.01.2023 & 01.02.2023. 3. Against Such Order, An Appeal Was Preferred By The Assessee Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Vide Impugned Order Dated 10.03.2023 Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Therefore, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Dinesh Kumar Rajendra Singh, Malad East Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer (AO), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

ITA 4689/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad &

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194ISection 271

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Jaynil Sunil Shah, Surat vs. The ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Surat.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 260/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.260/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Jaynil Sunil Shah, Income Tax Officer, C-1-B, Sidhhachakra Apartment, Vs. Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat, Modi Bunglow, Parte Point, Surat Aayakar Bhawan, Near – 395007, Gujarat Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Biaps2599M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 525/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 276CSection 292B

under section 142(1) was issued and upon the failure to comply, the Assessing Officer also issued notice for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b). Subsequently, a notice for best judgment assessment under section 144 was issued on 30.11.2016. In response to this notice, the representative

Hirabai & Hormusji Jiwanivakil Model School Trust, Dahanu Road vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4137/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.4137/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-2017) Hirabai & Hormusji V/S. Income Tax Officer, Jiwanivakil Model बिाम Exemption Ward, Thane School Trust Income Tax Officer, Near Chandra Takies, Exemption Ward, Thane Masoli, Dahanu Road, 400604 Palghar 401602 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaath1536J Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.04.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. “1. It Is Submitted That The Order Imposing Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-Dated 28.06.2019 [Itba/Pnl/7271(1)(B)/2019-20/1016563977(1)] Is Bad In Law & Is Required To Be Held As Illegal As The Penalty Order Is Under The Signature Of Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ito Exemption Ward, Thane. However, The Demand Notice Has Been Issued On 27.06.2019 By Mr. Prashant Singh, Ito Exemption Ward, Thane, I.E. One Day Prior To The Issue

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CA (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 156Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL

Sukhminder Singh, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 278/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singhla, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Rajesh Singh, Rewa vs. ITO Ward-1 Rewa, Rewa

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 129/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

passed by the Assessing Officer on 23.11.2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11 and also the appeal filed against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) on 29.05.2018. As the matter was heard together and the penalty under section 271(1)(b) arises out of the assessment ... added back a sum of Rs.62,89,198/- to the income of the assessee on this account. Furthermore, he initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(b) for the failure of the assessee to respond to notices under section 142(1). 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee went

Rajesh Singh, Rewa vs. ITO Ward -1, Rewa

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 128/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A