← 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)

Vama Pvt Ltd. ( Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-5 (3), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 7382/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2006-07
Section 133A

order as per law. Hence, A.Y.s. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 which are appeals against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 7376 to 7387/Mum/2019 :- 13. These twelve appeals are in connection with the same

Shri. Kirit J Kadecha, Mumbai vs. ITO 32 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6504/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2004-05 ) Shri Kirit Kadecha, Room No.1, Sai Sadan, Roshan Nagar, Chandavarkar Road, Borivali West, Mumbai 400 092 Pan: Aghpk-4337-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Ito-32(2)(2), Room No.108, 1St Floor, C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smitha Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smitha Nair
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

connotations. Hence, these two expressions/charges cannot be 4 used inter changeably or to amplify each other. Undisputedly, the Assessing Officer can initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on both the charges, if the facts leading to addition so warrants. In that situation, the Assessing Officer

Sujata Surendra Khandekar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4135/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4135/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sujata Surendra Khandekar बिधम/ Ito 19(3)(4) 6. Federation House, 4Th Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Floor, 24/30, A.P. Marg, Mumbai-400007. Opp. Metro, Mumbai- 400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpk9552B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer, Mumbai In

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Appeals)-52, Mumbai erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer, Mumbai in ITA. No.4135/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The appellant craves to leave to add, to alter, to amend, to modify and to substitute

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

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

ITA 677/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Vs Acit, Shgb House, Plot No.1, Rohtak Circle, Sector-3, Rohtak, Rohtak. Haryana. Pan: Aakas1464M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Parmita Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.11.2018 Of The Cit(A), Rohtak, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Provisions Of The Law, The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 30/03/2017 Of The Ld Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A), Being Passed In The Name Of The Non-Existence Assessee, Is Void Ab Initio & Therefore The Same Needs To Be Quashed. 2. That Without Prejudice To Ground No 1 Above & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Provisions Of The Law, Ld Ao As Well As Ld Cit(A) Erred In Levying/ Confirming The Penalty Under Action 271(1)(C) Despite Of Existence Of Non Curable Defects In Issuance Of Notice Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld Ao. 3. That Without Prejudice To Ground No 1 & 2 Above & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Provisions Of The Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) In Respect Of Rs. 20,39,000/- Towards Provision For Fraud Cases.”

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

above and on the facts and circumstances of the case & provisions of the law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of Rs. 20,39,000/- towards provision for fraud cases.” 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset

S.G Asia Holding (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4901/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar ()And Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S S.G. Asia Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Cir-4(2), One Indiabulls Centre, 1102, 11Th Floor, Mumbai B-Wing, Tower 2, 841, Jupiter Mills, Vs. Senapatibapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaecs 2909 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr.Ajit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Ajit Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

decisions of the quantum in the fresh proceedings after following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is quashed at this juncture. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

DCIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4490/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pinisetty Satya Prasanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27iSection 40

assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income ... aside. 17. It is further contended by Ld. A.R. for the assessee that when the assessee company has suffered huge losses no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied and relied upon the order passed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and order passed

Shorline Hotel P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT- CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 253/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) :- These are appeals by the assessee against respective orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), wherein penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act has been confirmed. 2. Since the issues are common and connected and the appeals were heard together, these are consolidated ... made 100% disallowance for bogus purchases without doubting the sales. Upon assessee’s appeal Ld.CIT(A) has granted a part relief. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act was also levied, which was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). Assessee has also raised a ground before ld.CIT(A) that

Choice Diamond, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 27/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2012-13) Choice Diamond, Cc-4101, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaafc-0677-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 19(1), 203, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 007 अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Dharshti Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Dharshti ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax(Appeals) -29, Mumbai [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 13/12/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13, confirming levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short ‘the Act’). 2 2. Ms. Dharshti Shah appearing on behalf of the assessee raised

Landmark Education India, Mumb Ai vs. ITO (Exemption)-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 563/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shailja Rai, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

appellant. 2. The CIT(A) erred in disposing the appeal (being appeal against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act) of the appellant as withdrawn due to Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 ('DTVSVA, 2020') when in fact the appellant has not opted for resolution

Shoreline Hotel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 258/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Vivek Upadhay. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee. It is a fact on record that based on addition sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the AO has imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. While recording satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order, the AO has observed that the assessee had furnished ... inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealed the income. Whereas, in the order passed imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO has alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. On a perusal of the show cause notice dated 25.03.2015 issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271

Sri Amit Kumar Loya, Gulbarga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Belagavi

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

ITA 38/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M.K. Biju, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

assessee in not substantiating his claim is also available on record. The Income-tax Officer, while passing the order of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, has not considered the available explanation of the assessee and whether the explanation so offered is bona fide

Pati Bel (Jv), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7256/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Pati Bell (Iv) Vs Acit C/O. Ue Development India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-62(1) No. 116, 702, 7Th Floor, Pride Hulkul, New Delhi Lalbagh, Bengaluru, Karnataka Pan-Aaffp1650G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. T. Kipgen, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, 2 the learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the view of the Appellant that the said payments are not liable to TDS under Section 194C ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying penalty under Section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act without appreciating the view of the Appellant that reimbursement of expenses is not hit by the Section

M/S. Mamraj Chuni Lal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2472/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2472/Del/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

assessee of an ordinary prudence, should not necessarily suffer on account of the mistake of the Chartered Accountant. Needless to say, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. The circumstances indicates that statutory discretion available to AO ought to have

Tv Today Network Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6542/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

facts while sustaining the initiation of penalty proceedings without recording a valid satisfaction which is a prerequisite for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has further gone wrong in sustenance of levy of penalty

Shri Puneet Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 1215/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

lower authorities. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant material placed on record. Here in this case penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied vide order dated 23.05.2012 for sum of Rs.8,81,70,704/-. In the appeal filed before

Bt Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7576/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Bt Global Communication Vs. Acit India Pvt. Ltd. Special Range – 2 11Th Floor, Eros Corporate New Delhi Tower, Opp. International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan No. Aaacg 1534 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Special Range–2, New Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 1, New Delhi Order Dated 27.08.2018 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35ASection 37

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in, initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are all independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave

Oncor Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6672/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submission of the parties who appeared through Videoconferencing facility and perused the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on quantum disallowance of expenses of ₹ 86,66,260/- out of the expenses of ₹1,42,362,574/- claimed ... finding of the learned Assessing Officer in view of the reason of no present tax liability, the assessee cannot be invited with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for filing of inaccurate particulars of the income. The expenses claimed by the assessee have not been found

Adinath Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2690/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Adinath Properties Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, B-1/12, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Circle-1(1), New Delhi – 110 057. Gurgaon Pan: Aagca2030B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). In view of this, we do not find any merit for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act when 3/4th of the expenditure is allowed based on agreements and invoices and only 1/4th of the expenditure ... disallowed. 8. Accordingly, we reverse the orders of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.4,86,675/-. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on : 22/11/2021

Sahajiv Rattan, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5885/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

30th March, 2015 determining total income of the assessee at Rs 2,01,09,597/- wherein several additions were made. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated for concealment of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income assessed under the head ‘Capital Gains

Kirti Mehta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1941/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

course of assessment proceedings he came to know about this mistake and, therefore, he surrendered it with a condition that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act should be levied. Assessee also stated that he voluntarily declared all these incomes and even otherwise complete details were furnished