← All Phrases

“penalty under section 271(1)(c)”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)1,699 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya
216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court
511
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

Judgments citing penalty under section 271(1)(c)

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 514/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

same technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 513/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

same technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 512/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

same technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 511/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

same technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 510/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

same technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee, and the same should be deleted. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Ajay Golechaa, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 454/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

wherein it was held that voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that the transactions relating to Long-Term Capital Gains from penny stock (NCL Research

Hercules Automobiles International Private Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. AO Type-W, Aayakar Bhawan, Alleppey

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 776/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hercules Automobiles International P. Ltd. .......... Appellant Tc No.16/1860, Dpi Road, Thycaud S.O. Chempakassery, Thiruvananthapuram 695014 [Pan: Aabcn2898M] Vs. Dcit, Circle - 1, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Jose Zachariah, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jose Zachariah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted ... Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.” 8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the facts of the present case does not warrant levy of penalty

Sampath Reddy Vem, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1230/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1229 & 1230/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sampath Reddy Vem Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Adfpv3598L Warangal (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Theses Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sampath Reddy Vem (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 Respectively For The A.Y 2014-15. As Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee Therefore, For The Purpose Of Convenience & Brevity, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

NFAC erred in not appreciating that where income is assessed on estimated basis, especially after rejection of books of account, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable, as held by various judicial pronouncements, including that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. Page

Sampath Reddy Vem, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward - 1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1229/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1229 & 1230/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sampath Reddy Vem Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Adfpv3598L Warangal (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Theses Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sampath Reddy Vem (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 Respectively For The A.Y 2014-15. As Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee Therefore, For The Purpose Of Convenience & Brevity, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

NFAC erred in not appreciating that where income is assessed on estimated basis, especially after rejection of books of account, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable, as held by various judicial pronouncements, including that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. Page

Sujatha Hariharan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2490/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2490 & 2491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sujatha Hariharan, Old No.20, New No.8, Poes Road, 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. Pan: Bgcps 5734A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Both Dated 24.07.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16.

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Jagtar Singh Brar Prop. Jagtar Singh Sadhu Singh, Bagapurana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Moga

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

ITA 70/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

Kuldeep Sood Enterprises [2006] 103 TTJ (Chd) 573 it has been held that Quantum Proceedings and penalty proceedings being altogether different penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied simply on account of the fact that an addition has been sustained in quantum appeal, Reliance is also placed

New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’]. 2. The sole issue raised before us challenges the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) 3. The assessee has admitted that the impugned order dated 15.09.2022 was received on 26.12.2024. However

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1935/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….……..……………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section ... Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1934/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….……..……………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section ... Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1933/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing ... which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1932/KOL/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….……..……………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section ... Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1931/KOL/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section ... Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR_565 (Karnataka) held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section

Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/DEL/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1579/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 बनाम Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jain, Dcit, H 82, South Extension, Part-1, Vs. Central Circle 07, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aalpj7172P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Kelvinator of India Ltd. Ld. Counsel submitted that after completion of original assessment, the then AO had levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 03.03.2014 and in that very penalty order, even the then AO had not levied penalty in relation to amount of Rs.58

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 5413/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intention of the Legislature. 9.5 Respectfully following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... during the years under consideration being the subsequent years of claiming the deduction. Be that as may, the AO has levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) stating that the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars. In this regard it is relevant to consider the following observations

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 5412/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intention of the Legislature. 9.5 Respectfully following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... during the years under consideration being the subsequent years of claiming the deduction. Be that as may, the AO has levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) stating that the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars. In this regard it is relevant to consider the following observations