← 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)

Arshadhussain Gulamabbas Shaikh, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 116/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat16 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

quantum appeal of the assessee to the file of ld CIT(A), for deciding the issue afresh, therefore, the order pf penalty under section 271(1)(c) confirmed by ld CIT(A), which is also passed in ex-parte proceedings is also set-aside, with the direction

Linklaters LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 3(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7307/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)

crore. Deduction for expenses 16. The learned AO erred in restricting the deduction for expenses to Rs. 2,51,457. Initiation of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) 17. The learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). General 18. Each one of the above grounds

Rudra Buildwell P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 3215/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Parth Dawar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

dated 28.02.2018 pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In the grounds of appeal, at the outset, it is mentioned that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') amounting to Rs.40,44,810/- has been wrongly sustained

M/S Trine Entertainment Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal GoyalFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 40

held to be liable for penalty. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance of claim of deduction under Section 10A of the Act. 4. The next disallowance on which penalty ... under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. We heard the parties on this issue. This is also a case where

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Telangana vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6018/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) erred in law in upholding the order passed by the assessing offer of imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the conditions for initiating penalty gets satisfied. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Telangana vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6017/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) erred in law in upholding the order passed by the assessing offer of imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the conditions for initiating penalty gets satisfied. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Telangana vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6016/DEL/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) erred in law in upholding the order passed by the assessing offer of imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the conditions for initiating penalty gets satisfied. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Telangna vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6015/DEL/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) erred in law in upholding the order passed by the assessing offer of imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the conditions for initiating penalty gets satisfied. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Bhim Singh, Kota Rajasthan vs. DCIT, C-2, Kota

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Maheshwari, (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance to the extent of 20% by allowing substantial relief to the assessee. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated and order of penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act was passed by the AO, thereby levying penalty of Rs. 3,51,663/- for furnishing inaccurate

Gawar Construction Co. Pvt Ltd, Hissar vs. DCIT, CC-1, Faridabad

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

ITA 2309/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee as per its grounds of appeal has challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for different assessment years of different amounts. 3. The AO in the penalty order passed under Section I.T.A No.2306, 2307, 2308, 2309/Del/2022 2 271(1)(c) has imposed penalty of Rs.4

Gawar Constructions Co. P.Ltd, Hisar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

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

ITA 2308/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee as per its grounds of appeal has challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for different assessment years of different amounts. 3. The AO in the penalty order passed under Section I.T.A No.2306, 2307, 2308, 2309/Del/2022 2 271(1)(c) has imposed penalty of Rs.4

Gawar Constructions Co. Pvt Lt.D, Hisar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

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

ITA 2307/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee as per its grounds of appeal has challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for different assessment years of different amounts. 3. The AO in the penalty order passed under Section I.T.A No.2306, 2307, 2308, 2309/Del/2022 2 271(1)(c) has imposed penalty of Rs.4

Gawar Constructions Co. Pvt Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

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

ITA 2306/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee as per its grounds of appeal has challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for different assessment years of different amounts. 3. The AO in the penalty order passed under Section I.T.A No.2306, 2307, 2308, 2309/Del/2022 2 271(1)(c) has imposed penalty of Rs.4

Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Maharashtra vs. ITO Wasrd-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

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

Revenue, supported the plea taken by ld Counsel. The ld DR thus pleaded that since the quantum on which the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was imposed by assessing officer, has been remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore ... penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of the said quantum, should also be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf

Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

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

Revenue, supported the plea taken by ld Counsel. The ld DR thus pleaded that since the quantum on which the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was imposed by assessing officer, has been remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore ... penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of the said quantum, should also be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 539/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation has been rejected simply

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation has been rejected simply

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 537/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation has been rejected simply

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 536/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation has been rejected simply

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation has been rejected simply