← 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)

The Mannarkkad Rural Service Co Operative Bank Ltd., Mannarkkad vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay application are dismissed

ITA 871/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80P

Apex Court per it’s decision in UoI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) has clarified the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act to be a civil liability. The same would hold equally for penalty u/s.271B, which is though subject to s. 273B

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3565/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble Vice-A N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Counsel for the assessee submits that the addition made while completing the assessment under section 153A of the Act based on which penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied has been deleted by the Tribunal in ITA. No. 3164/Del/2014 dated 13.10.2023 and, therefore, since the quantum additions have been ... authorities below and the order of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings. On perusal of the record before us it is noticed that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the following additions:- (i) Disallowance under section 40A(3) Rs. 4,07,600/- (ii) Disallowance

M/S. Impact Forging, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 311/RJT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

For Appellant: Shri P.C Yadav, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R
Section 153DSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27 December 2016. The AO in the assessment order initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of concealment of income which came to be confirmed by the AO in the penalty order

M/S. Impact Forging, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 310/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

For Appellant: Shri P.C Yadav, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R
Section 153DSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27 December 2016. The AO in the assessment order initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of concealment of income which came to be confirmed by the AO in the penalty order

M/S. Impact Forging, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 309/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

For Appellant: Shri P.C Yadav, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R
Section 153DSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27 December 2016. The AO in the assessment order initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of concealment of income which came to be confirmed by the AO in the penalty order

M/S. Impact Forging, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 308/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

For Appellant: Shri P.C Yadav, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R
Section 153DSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27 December 2016. The AO in the assessment order initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of concealment of income which came to be confirmed by the AO in the penalty order

M/S. Impact Forging, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 307/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

For Appellant: Shri P.C Yadav, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R
Section 153DSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27 December 2016. The AO in the assessment order initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of concealment of income which came to be confirmed by the AO in the penalty order

Rakhi Anant Sawant, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. 11(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2984/MUM/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2023AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri V.K.Tulsiyan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)

appeal. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed admitted facts that quantum appeal challenging the addition on the basis of which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been initiated is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A) penalty proceedings are not sustainable. The assessee

Thakorbhai & Company, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

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

ITA 641/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Thakorbhai & Company, I.T.O., 1, Amalsad Market Yard, Opp. Rly Ward-5, Vs. Station, Amalsad, Gandevi, Gujarat. Navsari. Pan No. Aabft 4392 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

supra) held that “whether since no income had been filed by assessee and income was assessed on estimate basis by revenue, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be levied for concealment of income.” In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, I find that no penalty

Hari Narain Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 273/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271A

assessment of the income under section 68 /69 and other related provisions of the Act and also for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in view of the relevant provisions of section 68/69 and 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, for the levy

Bitthal Das Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 272/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271A

assessment of the income under section 68 /69 and other related provisions of the Act and also for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in view of the relevant provisions of section 68/69 and 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, for the levy

Basant Sekhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 585/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

account of investment in shares and added under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 13/1/2018. Alongwith appeal, the assessee filed application for condonation ... assessee to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh, therefore, the order of penalty on the additions on which penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied, will not survive. However, the Assessing Officer will be at liberty to initiate penalty under Section 271(1)(c

Basant Sekhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

account of investment in shares and added under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 13/1/2018. Alongwith appeal, the assessee filed application for condonation ... assessee to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh, therefore, the order of penalty on the additions on which penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied, will not survive. However, the Assessing Officer will be at liberty to initiate penalty under Section 271(1)(c

Income Tax Officer-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankita Reality and Development Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. EktaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

view of the introduction of Faceless Penalty Scheme w.e.f. 2021 onwards. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without obtaining prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and 3 CO. NO.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality ... thereby violating the procedure laid down in section 274 of the Act. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act since he has failed to record his satisfaction at the time of passing the assessment order under section

Ginni Gold Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Anup Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

hereinafter referred 1 I.T.A. No. 564/Del/2022 to CIT (Appeals)] New Delhi, dated 8.02.2022 for the assessment year 2016-17 in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for not remitting the TDS into Govt. account consequently disallowance of Rs.46 ... payments invoking the provisions under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Subsequently the ld. CIT (Appeals) passed order dated 8.02.2022 levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee on the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.46,50,432/- under

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

ITA 2040/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Respondent/
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

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

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

ITA 2039/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Respondent/
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

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

Sandeep Narayan Rathi, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1824/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shashank A. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Commissioner in para-5.2 of the impugned also misunderstood that the appeal has been preferred against the order levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas it is a fact as also appeared in para-1 of the impugned order that the order under challenge before

Sanjay Kumar Choudhary HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer- 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 618/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.618/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary Huf, Vs. The Ito, 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward- 2(3)(6), Jadakadi, Mahidharpura, Surat Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealed the income to the tune of Rs.4,97,863/-. Thus, the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 4. After considering the assessment records and reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer concluded that assessee ... basis of which the penalty was levied, is purely an estimated addition. It is settled position in law that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied on additions made on estimation. The similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Manish Dhirajlal Mehta

Janakkumar Mukundprasad Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Bardoli, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

basis of which the penalty was levied, is purely an estimated addition. It is settled position in law that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied on additions made on estimation. The similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Manish Dhirajlal Mehta