← All Phrases

“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
94
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
84
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
58
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
57
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
50
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)

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 396/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

decision. In ITA No. 393 to 397/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 398 & 399/Srt/2022 ... r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 395/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

decision. In ITA No. 393 to 397/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 398 & 399/Srt/2022 ... r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 394/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

decision. In ITA No. 393 to 397/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 398 & 399/Srt/2022 ... r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 393/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

decision. In ITA No. 393 to 397/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 398 & 399/Srt/2022 ... r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that

Bishandayal Inderchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. Asst.CIT (Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 193/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Feb 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य

Bishandayal Inderchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. Asst.CIT (Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 192/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Feb 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य

Indu Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 342/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Kiran Kheria, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-42(5), New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.1531/Del/2022 is dismissed as withdrawn and ITA No

ITA 1532/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Kiran Kheria, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-42(5), New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.1531/Del/2022 is dismissed as withdrawn and ITA No

ITA 1531/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Dhaval Maheshbhai Ganatra, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1)

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 245/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 245/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 Dhaval Maheshbhai Ganatra Vs. Ito Puka Park-1, B/H. Hudco Police Ward-3(1)(1), Chowky, Nr. Krishna Chawk Kothariya Rajkot Main Road, Rajkot-360002 Pan: Aompg8373G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, A.R. Revenue By : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”), Delhi On 16.08.2022 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Assessment Order U/S. 144 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit Appeal (Faceless) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Disposing Of The Appeal On The Erroneous Premises That The Appellant Had Opted For & Closed This Appeal In Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 43,56,319/- U/S. 144 Of The Act.” A.Y. 2015-16 2 3. The Effective Issue Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On The Wrong Assumption Of Fact That The Assessee Has Settled The Dispute Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

that the assessee has settled the dispute under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme with respect to the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. To this effect, the Ld. A.R. drawn our attention on Form 5 for settling the dispute under Vivad se Vishwas

Tilak Raj Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO.Ward, 34(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2498/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 27

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2497 & 2498/Del/2022

Tilak Raj Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO-Ward 34(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2497/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 27

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2497 & 2498/Del/2022

Kishorbhai Chhaganbhai Andipara, Gondal vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 221/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

finalised the assessment order ex- parte under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- for default. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed ... receiving notices. Thus, the deliberate act of not pursuing the notices will not escape assessee’s responsibility. Therefore, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act is justifiable. The Ld. AR submitted that the penalty for each default is not justifiable but in the present case

Kiranben Kishorbhai Andipara, Gondal vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 220/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

finalised the assessment order ex- parte under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- for default. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed ... receiving notices. Thus, the deliberate act of not pursuing the notices will not escape assessee’s responsibility. Therefore, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act is justifiable. The Ld. AR submitted that the penalty for each default is not justifiable but in the present case

Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 25/SRT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 391, 392/Srt/2022 &, 21 To 25/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, D.C.I.T., D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Central Circle-2, Vs. Green Valley Apt., B/H Surat. Gangeshwar Mahadev Temple, C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Ahdpm 7194 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

decided by this consolidate order to avoid the conflicting decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) and / or 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal ... making additions on account of unexplained investment and unaccounted reciept. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 18.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed

Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 24/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 391, 392/Srt/2022 &, 21 To 25/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, D.C.I.T., D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Central Circle-2, Vs. Green Valley Apt., B/H Surat. Gangeshwar Mahadev Temple, C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Ahdpm 7194 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

decided by this consolidate order to avoid the conflicting decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) and / or 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal ... making additions on account of unexplained investment and unaccounted reciept. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 18.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed

Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 23/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 391, 392/Srt/2022 &, 21 To 25/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, D.C.I.T., D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Central Circle-2, Vs. Green Valley Apt., B/H Surat. Gangeshwar Mahadev Temple, C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Ahdpm 7194 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

decided by this consolidate order to avoid the conflicting decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) and / or 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal ... making additions on account of unexplained investment and unaccounted reciept. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 18.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed

Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 22/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 391, 392/Srt/2022 &, 21 To 25/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, D.C.I.T., D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Central Circle-2, Vs. Green Valley Apt., B/H Surat. Gangeshwar Mahadev Temple, C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Ahdpm 7194 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

decided by this consolidate order to avoid the conflicting decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) and / or 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal ... making additions on account of unexplained investment and unaccounted reciept. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 18.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed

Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 21/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 391, 392/Srt/2022 &, 21 To 25/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayeshkumar G. Macwan, D.C.I.T., D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Central Circle-2, Vs. Green Valley Apt., B/H Surat. Gangeshwar Mahadev Temple, C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Ahdpm 7194 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

decided by this consolidate order to avoid the conflicting decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) and / or 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal ... making additions on account of unexplained investment and unaccounted reciept. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 18.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed

Jigna Jayeshkumar Macwan, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 416/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415 & 416/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigna Jayeshkumar D.C.I.T., Macwan, Central Circle-2, Vs. D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Surat. Green Valley Apt., C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat- 395009. Pan No. Amkpm 9536 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

decision. In ITA No. 410 to 413/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 414 to 416/Srt/2022 ... r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 17.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that