← 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)

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 5411/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

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

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Suresh Maneklal Sheth, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4560/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. ARFor Respondent: 30.10.2025
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

purchases and sales stand accepted, the addition made merely on an estimated gross profit cannot form the basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard it is relevant to take note of the following observations of the coordinate bench in the case ... assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4175/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT. Neeraj Jindal (2022) wherein it held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied simply because income was disclosed in a 132(4) proceeding if the assessee voluntarily discloses it during the assessment

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4174/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT. Neeraj Jindal (2022) wherein it held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied simply because income was disclosed in a 132(4) proceeding if the assessee voluntarily discloses it during the assessment

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4173/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT. Neeraj Jindal (2022) wherein it held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied simply because income was disclosed in a 132(4) proceeding if the assessee voluntarily discloses it during the assessment

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4172/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT. Neeraj Jindal (2022) wherein it held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied simply because income was disclosed in a 132(4) proceeding if the assessee voluntarily discloses it during the assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarthy, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

foundation thereof needs to be spelt out in clear terms; in absence of specific charge for initiation of penalty proceedings, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not valid. Page. No 5 I.T.A.No.352/VIZ/2025 Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty Section 271(1)(c), read with section ... club both - Held, yes-Whether therefore, in absence of specific charge for initiation of penalty proceedings, Tribunal rightly held that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in case of assessee was not valid - Held, yes [Paras 21 and 23] [In favour of assessee].” 9. A Similar view

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

held that when income is assessed on estimation and there is no positive evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. 12. In light of the above legal position and since the quantum addition has been deleted, we direct that the penalty levied under section 271 ... deleted. 12.1. Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the assessee, one relating to the quantum addition and the other relating to the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, are allowed. 13. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

held that when income is assessed on estimation and there is no positive evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. 12. In light of the above legal position and since the quantum addition has been deleted, we direct that the penalty levied under section 271 ... deleted. 12.1. Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the assessee, one relating to the quantum addition and the other relating to the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, are allowed. 13. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced

The Bank Employees Co Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata

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

ITA 362/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 362/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Bank Employees Cooperative Bank Limited,………………………………………………….Appellant 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabat5298D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-36, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Sanbarta Koley, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(9)Section 83

pending before the Hon’ble ITAT against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed on 20th December 2024 with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c). 2. That during the course of preparation for the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant, upon consultation with legal and tax advisors

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3084/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and the other decisions of different High Courts, the ITAT rightly held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee was not valid. 24. We are unable to find any error having been

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3083/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and the other decisions of different High Courts, the ITAT rightly held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee was not valid. 24. We are unable to find any error having been

Kandla Steel Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Gujarat

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

ITA 569/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 569/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Kandla Steel Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 105, Lotus Business Park, Ra Baug Plot No. 20A, Sector-8, Lane, Off. S.V. Road, Malad West, Gandhidham Mumbai-400064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck1337N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Thakur, Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Thakur, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming penalty without appreciating the fact that rejection of books and estimation of income does not automatically justify imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). 5.That the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the non-compliance with notices as sufficient ground to reject the appeal, without

Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat.

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

ITA 918/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat, Ito, Ward 1(2)(1), 11-1572, Radhakrishna Textile Aayakar Bhavan, Majuragate, Market, Ring Road, Vs. Surat-395007. Surat-395002. Pan No. Awgps 7288 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh C. Shah, CA
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

opportunity to explain the assessee on 05.08.2022 providing an opportunity to explain as to why penalty under s as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) should not be levied. ection 271(1)(c) should not be levied. However, no compliance was made by the assessee to the said

Jetsynthesys Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 346/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jetsynthesys Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Limited, 101-104, 1St Floor, Metro House, Mangaldas Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaicm1358A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of The Act It Be Held That The Penalty Imposed U/S 270A

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271(1)(c)

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. Respectfully following the above judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Ahmedabad vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman

Mangal Singh Rathore, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax Circle 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 5368/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

order of penalty was sustained. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that it is settled position in the law that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on the addition/disallowances made or sustained on estimation basis. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the decision ... adhoc basis @ 12.5% of the impugned purchases. We find that it is settled position under the income tax proceedings that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the addition is made on estimation/adhoc basis. Similar view was taken in the case laws relied

Avance Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of

ITA 4885/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

deleting the penalty levied on peak additions. 6. We find that it is settled position under the income tax proceedings that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the addition is made on estimation/adhoc basis. Similar view was taken in the case laws relied

Rupesh Tambi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 271A

terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as according to the Court, the word "inaccurate" signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee ... ultimate inference in Dilip N Shroff v. Joint CIT to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT was overruled. 10. We are not concerned in the present case with

Thomas Victor, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 19(6), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2987/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 271D

principle, we hold that the assessee can challenge the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in passing the assessment order while challenging levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In case the re- assessment proceedings have been completed without proper jurisdiction entrusted upon the Assessing Officer, then

Saradambika Power Plant (P) Ltd, Srikakulam vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/VIZ/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsaradambika Power Plant (P) Ltd., Plot No.15, Konna Street, Radha Krishna Nagar Colony, Srikakulam. Andhra Pradesh - 532001 ............... Appellant Pan: Aajcs5970R V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), ……………… Respondent Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3Section 40A(3)Section 43B

notice is invalid. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned