“penalty under section 271(1)(c)”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)1,699 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court

953

citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT

292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court

812

citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court

672

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court

565

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya

216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court

511

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

Judgments citing penalty under section 271(1)(c)

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3695/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

sample invoices of third party in relation to the same. 4. In dismissing the Appellant's petition for non-levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the grounds of appeal referred above is separate, and may kindly be considered independent of each other

Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3674/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 745/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.745/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Room No.65, Moti Mention, 5Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400 004 Pan: Adwpd-9204-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. I.T.O 19(2)(5), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani

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

No.3501/Mum/2017. The Tribunal vide order dated 03/11/2017 confirmed the findings of CIT(A). The Assessing Officer vide order dated 23/03/2018 levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition confirmed by Tribunal. Against the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before ... unsustainable. 7. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and decisions referred above, we see no reason to uphold penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, appeal

ITO 25(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shobha Chidmabaram, Mumbai

ITA 2497/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Smt. Shobha Chidambaram The Income Tax Officer 9, Ankur, Hanuman Cross 25(3)(1) Room No. 233, 2Nd Floor, Road, Kautilya Bhavan, 2, Ville Parle (E), Vs. Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400 051 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaapc4727A Assessee By : Shri Mehul Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B Irani, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(d)Section 69C

learned Assessing Officer) against the order passed by National Faceless Centre, [the learned CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2010-11, wherein the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the order dated 31st March, 2016 of ₹2,84,756/- was reduced to only 10% of the penalty

Gautam Hiralal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed reversing the findings of the lower authorities

ITA 1485/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gautam Hiralal Gandhi The Dcit, 1801, Chandanbala, Circle 22(1) Retilal R Thakkar Marg, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Malabar Hill S.O, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 006 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabpg7668F Assessee By : Shri Rajnikant Chaniyari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Chaniyari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B Irani, DR

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

contentions and perused the order of the lower authorities. In the present Gautam Hiralal Gandhi; A.Y. 16-17 case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is agitated by the assessee stating that notice issued dated 11th June, 2019, under section 274 read with section ... such TDS but should not have taxed interest income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, even on the merits the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. 012. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed reversing the findings

R G Patil & Company, Haveri vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

express statutory provisions of section 271(1)(c) readwith Explanation 5A there-under, as discussed above, the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the undisclosed income of Rs.8,50,000/- offered in the return of income filed under section 153C. Reliance is placed ... which was not declared in regular return filed prior to search, is declared in the return u/s.153A, the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA Nos.352 - 357/Bang/2021 Page 11 of 30 4.4 The assessee has not offered any cogent explanation

Levi Staruss (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 695/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 695/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Sjr Cyber, 7Th Floor, Commissioner Of No. 22, Laskar Hosur Road, Income Tax, Adugodi, Circle 4 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 030. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacl3092Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961("The Act") On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Act, respectively; 24. The learned AO has erred in law and in facts in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant

DCIT-1 (2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2448/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.2447/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) आअसं.2448/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) The Dcit1(2)(1), Room No.535, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd. 66B, Podar Chamber, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aabcp-9574-G ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prateek Jain. सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Vranda U. MatkariFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Jain

Section 271(1)(c)

assessee submitted at the outset that the Department had already filed appeals against the order of CIT(A) dated 21/09/2020 deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [in short ‘the Act’] for the assessment years ... these two appeals have been inadvertently filed in duplication. The earlier appeals filed by Department against the orders of CIT(A) deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13 and 2014-15 have been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 06/10/2021

DCIT 1(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2447/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Vranda U. MatkariFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Jain

Section 271(1)(c)

PAN India Networks Infravest Ltd., Mumbai vs. Ty. CIT (OSD) CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 142/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepan India Networks Infravest Limited V. Dcit- Central Circle – 7(1) 135, Continental Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Pan: Aaccp2459H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Bhansali Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani

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

instant case, the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) / AO failed to appreciate that a disallowance arising out of bonafide mistake / oversight do not invite

Pegasus Properties P. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 943/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Dhramveer Singh

Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 22Section 23Section 23(4)

alleged unexplained expenditure (i.e. difference in cash as per books vis-a-vis physical cash) u/s. 69C of the Act. initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act 17. erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings on the above u/s 271(1)(c).” 5. The assessee

Dy.Citi Cent. Cir-8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Karamtara Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2332/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 271(1)(c)

such sales). In such a scenario, when the addition sustained was based on estimation (G.P. %)cannot be a ground for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, we note that in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12, similar penalty levied

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkuar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2481/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2481/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala for Shri Tanzil Pdvekar

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.41,57,384/- was made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of bogus purchases. Consequent to the addition, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 12/03/2019. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty. The ld.Departmental Representative prayed ... invalid. Once the reassessment is held to be invalid, the addition does not survive. Hence, there is no question of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Both sides heard. The Revenue is in appeal assailing the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied under

ACIT -17 (1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2479/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2479/मुं/2021("न.व.2009-10) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala for Shri Tanzil Pdvekar

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

addition of Rs.68,78,286/- was made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of boguspurchases. Consequent to the addition, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 12/03/2019. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty. The ld.Departmental Representative ... invalid. Once the reassessment is held to be invalid, the addition does not survive. Hence, there is no question of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Both sides heard. The Revenue is in appeal assailing the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied under

ACIT- 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2480/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2480/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of 2 Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Tanzil Pdvekar

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.38,20,519/- was made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of bogus purchases. Consequent to the addition, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 12/03/2019. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty. The ld.Departmental Representative prayed ... invalid. Once the reassessment is held to be invalid, the addition does not survive. Hence, there is no question of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3 5. Both sides heard. The Revenue is in appeal assailing the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied

Mr. Ajit Mahadeo Vaze, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 35/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj Gurjar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities to contend that this was a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA. No. 35/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the records and considered the legal

DCIT 4 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Skf India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7278/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R. P. PopatFor Respondent: Mrs. Neha Thakur (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted ... Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.” 4.3.8 In view of the above discussion, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) levied in respect of the adjustment of Rs. 4,10,30,720/- made

Harmeet Singh Sablok, Mumbai vs. The ITO WD 22(1) (5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1551/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleharmeet Singh Sablok V. Income Tax Officer – 22(1)(5) A/24, Queens Park Premises Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers Juhu, Santacruz (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Alrps3621D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Turalkar Department By Smt Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Turalkar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

been detected by the Department and the addition was made in his income only on 6 Harmeet Singh Sablok estimate basis, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed because the assessee's income on estimate basis keeping in view his household expenses as well ... question was, in fact, more than the income returned by him and that estimated additions in the returned income do not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c)of the Act. The Revenue went up in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was allowed by order dated

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7992/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Akshita BhandariFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

income. Accordingly, ground no.11, is allowed for statistical purpose. 55. Ground no.12, raised in assessee’s appeal with regard to initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is pre–mature in nature and is accordingly dismissed. 56. In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly

ACIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Idustries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 1044/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rayan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 141Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

made by the Assessing Officer stands deleted. Taking note of this, the CIT(A) has deleted the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant extract of the order of CIT(A) is as under: “7.1 I have considered the arguments of the assessee