← 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)

Mr Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 2483/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Singha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c). In the instant notice under Section 274 for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 was issued by the 5 Assessing Officer to the respondent assessee to afford him opportunity of hearing for concealment of particulars ... grounds which he has to meet specifically". We find that in the present set of facts, notice under Section 274 for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the respondent assessee to afford him opportunity of hearing for concealment

Navansh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

assessee has deliberately and wilfully furnished inaccurate particulars of income, a conclusion which is obvious from the discussion made in the order, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is also initiated. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the assessee had arranged pre- arranged accommodation entries to the tune

Kalpana Dilip Mehta As Legal Heir of Dilip D Mehta, Mumbai vs. JCIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. C.A. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

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), men- rea was necessary, as according to the Court, the word "inaccurate" signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee

Uniphos Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cen RG IX, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3878/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04
For Appellant: "I. TAXABILITY OF ADVANCE LICENCE BENEFIT RECEIVABLE: Rs.9,79
Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

matter of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c)]. 81. We find that the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the issue reducing the profit eligible for deduction under section 80IB from Rs.14.80 Crore to Rs. 13.78 Crore. The AO also levied similar penalty on non-exclusion ... return of income was filed, and on which two views are possible. We endorse the view of Id CIT(A) that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on the debatable issues. Moreover, we find that on all items we have allowed full relief to the assessee either

Asst CIT CC 38, Mumbai vs. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3534/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

matter of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c)]. 81. We find that the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the issue reducing the profit eligible for deduction under section 80IB from Rs. 14.80 Crore to Rs. 13.78 Crore. The AO also levied similar penalty ... return of income was filed, and on which two views are possible. We endorse the view of ld CIT(A) that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on the debatable issues. Moreover, we find that on all items we have allowed full relief to the assessee either

Addl CIT Cen RG IX, Mumbai vs. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd ( Formlery Known As United Phosphorus Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6236/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

matter of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c)]. 81. We find that the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the issue reducing the profit eligible for deduction under section 80IB from Rs. 14.80 Crore to Rs. 13.78 Crore. The AO also levied similar penalty ... return of income was filed, and on which two views are possible. We endorse the view of ld CIT(A) that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on the debatable issues. Moreover, we find that on all items we have allowed full relief to the assessee either

Uniphos Enterprises Ltd ( Formerly Known As United Phosphorus Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cen RG IX, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6224/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

matter of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c)]. 81. We find that the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the issue reducing the profit eligible for deduction under section 80IB from Rs. 14.80 Crore to Rs. 13.78 Crore. The AO also levied similar penalty ... return of income was filed, and on which two views are possible. We endorse the view of ld CIT(A) that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on the debatable issues. Moreover, we find that on all items we have allowed full relief to the assessee either

The ACIT CC-38, Mumbai vs. M/S. United Phosphorous Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

matter of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c)]. 81. We find that the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the issue reducing the profit eligible for deduction under section 80IB from Rs. 14.80 Crore to Rs. 13.78 Crore. The AO also levied similar penalty ... return of income was filed, and on which two views are possible. We endorse the view of ld CIT(A) that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on the debatable issues. Moreover, we find that on all items we have allowed full relief to the assessee either

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd(Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cen Cir-38, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

matter of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c)]. 81. We find that the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the issue reducing the profit eligible for deduction under section 80IB from Rs. 14.80 Crore to Rs. 13.78 Crore. The AO also levied similar penalty ... return of income was filed, and on which two views are possible. We endorse the view of ld CIT(A) that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on the debatable issues. Moreover, we find that on all items we have allowed full relief to the assessee either

Anwar Sulthan Akbar Ali, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ncw-19(3), Chennai

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

ITA 461/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.460 & 461/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anwar Sulthan Akbar Ali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5131, Mosque Road, Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Ayapakkam, Tiruvallur 600 077. Chennai. [Pan:Aonpa4265J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 20.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up Appeal In Ita No. 460/Chny/2025 For Adjudication Of Confirmation Of Quantum Addition.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 69A

accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 461/Chny/2025 against confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 14 days. The assessee filed affidavit for condonation

Anwar Sulthan Akbar Ali, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ncw-19(3), Chennai

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

ITA 460/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.460 & 461/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anwar Sulthan Akbar Ali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5131, Mosque Road, Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Ayapakkam, Tiruvallur 600 077. Chennai. [Pan:Aonpa4265J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 20.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up Appeal In Ita No. 460/Chny/2025 For Adjudication Of Confirmation Of Quantum Addition.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 69A

accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 461/Chny/2025 against confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 14 days. The assessee filed affidavit for condonation

L T Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1444/DEL/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80GSection 80HSection 80I

sought to be evaded in terms of explanation 4 to section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the quantum of penalty imposed of Rs. 36,26,752/- is highly excessive and arbitrary

High Range Foods Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2014-15 High Range Foods Private Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1) Limited, Kochi 28/3030, Vs. Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthra, Ernakulam-682020 Pan : Aaach6076L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca For Revenue : Smt. Leena Lal (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 4

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

Dudhsagar Research and Development Association, Mehsana vs. The DCIT(E) Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1048/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri ParinFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

dismissed.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that admittedly in this case the ITAT had decided this issue ... held that where issue whether amount of grant-in-aid was capital receipt or a revenue receipt was a debatable issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Dudhsagar Research and Development Association vs. DCIT(E) Asst.Year –2014-15 - 5– the Act could not be imposed. Further

Silicon Jewel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The CIT (A)-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 617/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

before the hearing of the appeal.” “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of passing the quantum order ... before the hearing of the appeal.” “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of passing the quantum order

Silicon Jewel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The CIT (A)-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 586/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

before the hearing of the appeal.” “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of passing the quantum order ... before the hearing of the appeal.” “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of passing the quantum order

Silicon Jewel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

before the hearing of the appeal.” “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of passing the quantum order ... before the hearing of the appeal.” “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of passing the quantum order

Silicon Jewel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 421/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

before the hearing of the appeal.” “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of passing the quantum order ... before the hearing of the appeal.” “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of passing the quantum order

Diesh Kumar Goyal, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kota

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

ITA 32/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Baroda Tin Works (supra) held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on deemed income under section 69. 4.10 In view of the above facts and case laws, the penalty imposed

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1905/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A

arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second ... seen with reference to the return that it is filed by the assessee. Thus, for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A