← 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)

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty ... c) of the 1 Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty ... c) of the 1 Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty ... c) of the 1 Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy, . Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 71/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Vs. Dcit, Limited, Dobiriyal Complex Gole Central Circle-1, Lucknow Market Mahanagar, Lucknow Pan: Aaccj0525G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.11.2024 Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 4.06.2019, Passed Under Section 271(1)(C). The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Both Law & Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Penalty Of 2,20,41,900/- Levied By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That: A. The Appellant Has Neither Concealed The Particulars Of Its Income Nor Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income; B. There Was No Failure On The Part Of The Appellant In Truly & Fully Disclosing All Material Facts C. Mere Disallowance Or Rejection Of The Claim Or Stand Taken By The Appellant Based On Reasonable Interpretation Of The Law Is Not Sufficient To Attract Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) 3. The Amount Of Penalty Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Invalid, Excessive & Unreasonable.”

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

option but to conclude that the assessee company had nothing to say in this regard and therefore, he levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs.2,20,41,900/- @ 100% tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by such order of the ld. AO, the assessee went ... held, that since the assessee had failed to submit any reply that would disprove the findings of the ld. AO, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was fit to be upheld. Therefore, she confirmed the levy of penalty of Rs.2,20,41,900/- and dismissed the appeal against

Kobsai Hospitallities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 291/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

assessee had not filed any appeal in respect of the assessment before the appellate authority and therefore, he proceeded to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs.1,51,50,193/-. 5. Aggrieved by such levy of penalty, the assessee went in appeal

Kobsai Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 290/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

assessee had not filed any appeal in respect of the assessment before the appellate authority and therefore, he proceeded to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs.1,51,50,193/-. 5. Aggrieved by such levy of penalty, the assessee went in appeal

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5674/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: None
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

which two views are possible. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is not a case for penalty under section 271(1)(c). When the issue is debatable and two views are possible, then on such issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied by charging ... Nayan Builders & Developers 368 ITR 722 (Bom) who held that where the quantum appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similarly, before the coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT LTU v. Reliance Industries

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5673/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: None
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

which two views are possible. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is not a case for penalty under section 271(1)(c). When the issue is debatable and two views are possible, then on such issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied by charging ... Nayan Builders & Developers 368 ITR 722 (Bom) who held that where the quantum appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similarly, before the coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT LTU v. Reliance Industries

Dinesh Jat, Sagar vs. CIT(A), NFAC

ITA 196/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

facts. 2. Penalty Confirmed Without Establishing Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) without demonstrating that the appellant had either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The appellant had no willful intent or knowledge ... file of the AO for de novo assessment, the penalty order is unsustainable as it is premature. We therefore delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) with liberty to the Department to take such penal actions as may be appropriate after the completion of assessment and depending

Dinesh Jat, Sagar vs. CIT (A), Sagar

ITA 195/JAB/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

facts. 2. Penalty Confirmed Without Establishing Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) without demonstrating that the appellant had either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The appellant had no willful intent or knowledge ... file of the AO for de novo assessment, the penalty order is unsustainable as it is premature. We therefore delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) with liberty to the Department to take such penal actions as may be appropriate after the completion of assessment and depending

Ganpat Singh Patel, Balaghat vs. ITO Ward, Balaghat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 53/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Ganpat Singh Patel V. Ito Ward, Balaghat Prem Nagar, Balaghat H.O. Railway Station Road, Balaghat, Balaghat, 481001, Balaghat-481001. Madhya Pradesh. Pan:Aeopp9849L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

circumstances of the case the learning C.I.T. has erred in not giving the opportunity of being heard to appellant. 5. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) should be deleted as there was no deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and any discrepancies were inadvertent or based on bona

Ranjit Pathak, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4102/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

liberty to the AO to take recourse to law if fresh, non-compliance occurs in the remanded proceedings. 3.2 As far as penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, it is levied for concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as a consequence ... when the additions/assessment forming the basis of the penalty are obliterated, the penalty cannot survive. 3.3 Applying K.C. Builders (supra), the present penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained at this stage. However, unlike Section 271(1)(b), which addressed a past procedural default now rendered otiose

Ranjit Pathak, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4101/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

liberty to the AO to take recourse to law if fresh, non-compliance occurs in the remanded proceedings. 3.2 As far as penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, it is levied for concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as a consequence ... when the additions/assessment forming the basis of the penalty are obliterated, the penalty cannot survive. 3.3 Applying K.C. Builders (supra), the present penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained at this stage. However, unlike Section 271(1)(b), which addressed a past procedural default now rendered otiose

Radha Chandrababu Panikar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

ITA 959/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Radha Chandrababu Income Tax Officer Panikar Ward-3(2)(9), Vs. 28, Ramnagar, Nr. Ambica Ahmedabad Tube Colony, Station Road, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382445 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apupp1233M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr 19/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Pertain To The Same Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12; While One Is Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(In Short “Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.03.2025 In Quantum Proceedings In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), The Other Appeal Lies Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Quantum Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. ITA Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 [Radha Chandrababu

Radha Chandrababu Panikar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

ITA 958/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Radha Chandrababu Income Tax Officer Panikar Ward-3(2)(9), Vs. 28, Ramnagar, Nr. Ambica Ahmedabad Tube Colony, Station Road, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382445 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apupp1233M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr 19/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Pertain To The Same Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12; While One Is Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(In Short “Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.03.2025 In Quantum Proceedings In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), The Other Appeal Lies Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Quantum Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. ITA Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 [Radha Chandrababu

DCIT, CC-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Goldmine Commodities Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1260/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1260/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Goldmine House, V/S. Central Circle-1(4), 4, Niranjan-Nirakar Society, Ahmedabad. Near Shreyas Railway Crossing, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccg1295L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Kishor Goyal, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Dcit Vs. Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(viib)

addition. The assessee did not file any reply, therefore, the AO proceeded to add Rs. 6,58,62,000/- and also initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274. The assessed income was computed at Rs. 9,85,22,820/-. 9. The assessee preferred an appeal before

Incometax Officer, Tanuku vs. Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti, Thimmarajupalem

ITA 330/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: us :

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, on the same terms, the order vacating the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also set aside to his file. The CIT(A) is directed to dispose of the appeal filed

Incometax Officer, Tanuku vs. Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti, Thimmarajupalem

ITA 329/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: us : “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, on the same terms, the order vacating the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also set aside to his file. The CIT(A) is directed to dispose of the appeal filed

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Cop Ward 2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

ITA 138/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

earliest opportunity, and failure to do so bars such objections at a later stage. We concur with this view. According the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is justified when there is clear concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In the present case, concealment is established from the failure

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Cop Ward 2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

ITA 137/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

earliest opportunity, and failure to do so bars such objections at a later stage. We concur with this view. According the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is justified when there is clear concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In the present case, concealment is established from the failure