← All Phrases

“penalty u/s 271(1)(c)”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)2,277 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (9 SCC 589), cited in 200 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal
9 SCC 589 · 2009 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarifies the scope of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that for its applicability, conditions stated in the provision must strictly exist, and making an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.
221 ITR 110 · 1996 · High Court
146
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Prasanna Dugar v. CIT
70 Taxmann.com 175 · 2016 · Supreme Court
49
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied even if the assessee voluntarily discloses income after detection by the department or subsequent to a search, especially when the explanation provided is not bona fide or cannot be substantiated.

Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
135 Taxmann.com 244 · 2022 · High Court
45
citing judgments

A notice imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it shows non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer regarding the specific grounds for levying the penalty.

CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills
256 ITR 447 · 2002 · High Court
30
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions to income are made on the basis of estimation, rather than on concrete evidence of concealment. Deletion of such a penalty is upheld.

ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF
348 ITR 561 · 2012 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

Section 271AAA penalty deletion can be based on the Apex Court's decision in ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF (2012) 348 ITR 561, particularly when there was no specific question put to the assessee about the manner of earning undisclosed income.

CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd.
41 Taxmann.com 280 · 2014 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the income addition is made on an estimated basis without clinching material suggesting concealment or inaccurate particulars.

New Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
49 Taxmann.com 573 · 2014 · High Court
24
citing judgments

The charge of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income may overlap. A taxpayer's conduct can be considered bonafide even if their submissions were rejected in the quantum appeal.

Judgments citing penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai vs. Gordhanbhai Govindbhai Kakadiya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

ITA 5333/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2026

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit-23(1), Mumbai Vs Gordhanbhai Govindbhai Kakadiya Room No.511, 5Th Floor Bc-2010, G Block Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Agypk2399A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

This will effectively allow the Revenue's appeal. We also seek clarity that with the addition being upheld, the protective initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (ground 7 before CIT(A)) stands revived and can be pursued as per law (subject of course to disposal in separate penalty proceedings

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4465/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

From the records, we noticed that assessee failed to substantiate the stand taken by him for not imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore penalty was imposed by the A.O. And even during the appellate proceedings the assessee could not demonstrate any reasonable cause ... Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of Zoom Communication (P) Ltd, 191 Taxman 179 (Del), involving imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of claim made of 8 High Voit Electicals, Mumbai. legally unjustifiable deduction regarding which no debate or controversy was involved, has held

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4464/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

From the records, we noticed that assessee failed to substantiate the stand taken by him for not imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore penalty was imposed by the A.O. And even during the appellate proceedings the assessee could not demonstrate any reasonable cause ... Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of Zoom Communication (P) Ltd, 191 Taxman 179 (Del), involving imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of claim made of 8 High Voit Electicals, Mumbai. legally unjustifiable deduction regarding which no debate or controversy was involved, has held

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4463/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

From the records, we noticed that assessee failed to substantiate the stand taken by him for not imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore penalty was imposed by the A.O. And even during the appellate proceedings the assessee could not demonstrate any reasonable cause ... Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of Zoom Communication (P) Ltd, 191 Taxman 179 (Del), involving imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of claim made of 8 High Voit Electicals, Mumbai. legally unjustifiable deduction regarding which no debate or controversy was involved, has held

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4462/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

From the records, we noticed that assessee failed to substantiate the stand taken by him for not imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore penalty was imposed by the A.O. And even during the appellate proceedings the assessee could not demonstrate any reasonable cause ... Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of Zoom Communication (P) Ltd, 191 Taxman 179 (Del), involving imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of claim made of 8 High Voit Electicals, Mumbai. legally unjustifiable deduction regarding which no debate or controversy was involved, has held

Babubhai Gangabhai Bagul, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Navsari

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

ITA 1352/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

dated 11.11.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. 2. At the outset, itself Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed

Prafulla Kumar Bidhara, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.763/CTK/2025 is partly allowed whereas ITA

ITA 764/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.763&764/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

stands deleted. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed. 12. ITA No.764/CTK/2025 – This appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2011-12. It was submitted that out of the three additions made, the Tribunal has confirmed only an addition

Prafulla Kumar Bidhara, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.763/CTK/2025 is partly allowed whereas ITA

ITA 763/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.763&764/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

stands deleted. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed. 12. ITA No.764/CTK/2025 – This appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2011-12. It was submitted that out of the three additions made, the Tribunal has confirmed only an addition

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Shillong vs. Meghalaya Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Lumjingshai, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 308/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 72Section 80Section 80I

holding as under:- “The penalty order, the grounds of appeal and the submission have been perused. It is seen that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been imposed for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of two amounts (i) an amount of Rs 6,31,275/- In respect of disallowances made

Shri Ajay Mayor, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

clearly demonstrates that the taxability of the said amount involves a debatable issue and therefore there is no question of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. In response, Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order

Dawat E Islami Ap, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1575/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1575/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dawat E Islami Ap, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Exemption Ward-1(1), Pan: Aabtd5383Q Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ca (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Dawat E Islami Ap, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25/07/2025 For The A.Y.2015-16. Dawat E Islami Ap Vs. Ito

Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

Therefore, the claim is genuine and no concealment of income/particulars. Therefore, penalty levied may be deleted. 5. Ld. AO erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same as the appellant has neither concealed the particulars of income

Sumanto Paul, Delhi vs. The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 8755/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2016-17 Sumanto Paul, Vs The Assessing Officer, 139, Kohat Enclave, Assessment Unit, Pitampur, Income Tax Department, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan: Aajpp4082C

For Appellant: Ms Shruti Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

finalized the penalty by passing orders as follows:- 1. Total amount of addition on which Rs.26,59,125/- penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable 2. Tax on addition with surcharge Rs.16,43,340/- 3. Minimum penalty u/s 271(1)(c) @ 100% Rs.16,43,340/- of tax sought ... evaded 4. Maximum Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) @ 300% Rs.49,30,018/- of tax sought to be evaded 5. Penalty levied to be livable Rs.16,43,340/- 3. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee as barred by limitation since the assessee failed to justify

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Dehradun, Subhash Road Dehradun vs. State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd., I.T. Park, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 233/DDN/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun10 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit Vs State Infrastructure & Circle-1(1) Industrial Development Dehradun Corporation Of Uttarakhand- Uttarakhand Ltd., 29 Iie, Sahastradhara Road (It Park) Road, Haripuram, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aahcs7324R Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Pramod Verma, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Sahil Kala, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. The Claim Of The Assessee Was That It Had Suo-Motto Withdrew The Inadvertent Amount Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80Ia Of The Act However, The Ao Has Levied The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By Ao Which Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). 3. Ld. Cit (A) By Observing That Under Identical Circumstances, Penalty Levied For Ay 2011-12 Was Deleted By His Predecessor. Since The Ld. Cit(A) Has Followed The Order For Ay 2011-12 Wherein Penalty Levied Under Identical Circumstances, Was Deleted Which Facts Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. The Relevant Observation Of Ld. Cit(A) While Deleting The Penalty Are Reproduced As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40ASection 801ASection 80I

motto withdrew the inadvertent amount of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act however, the AO has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by AO which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 3. Ld. CIT (A) by observing that under identical circumstances, penalty levied ... confirm the addition made by AO in assessment order and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6.2 AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income on part of the assessee for a sum of Rs.5,76,34,588/- (Rs. 5,74,49,588/-excess claimed u/s

Sunil Suresh Rane, Dombivli vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsunil Suresh Rane Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 301 Amrita, Apts, Rajaji Kautilya Bhawan C41- Path Lane 43, Avenue 3, Near No.4 Dombivli Videsh Bhavan, G Block Mumbai - 421201 Bkc, Gilban Area, Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Abtpr2589P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Aakash Parekh (Virtually Present) Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 29.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. Ground No. 1: Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251

circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act. 12. Ground No. 12: Prejudicial and Unwarranted Observations/Directions On the facts and in the circumstances

Achala Punja, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2630/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

claim u/s 54. 3. The appellant submits that there has been no concealment of any income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars warranting penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Mere making of a claim, even if it is found not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars ... rely on the following decisions that squarely support her case that mere disallowance of a claim genuinely made does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). ¢ CIT v. Harshavardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd. (259 ITR 212, Rajasthan HC) © CIT v. SSP (India) Ltd (328 ITR 643, P&H HC) e Shri

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 132/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

agreement, all the grounds raised in the appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the above directions. Regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act; the dispute pertains to ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. Representatives of both ... this order. Accordingly, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) in ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 is set aside and matter regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer; with the direction to decide this issue in accordance with

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 131/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

agreement, all the grounds raised in the appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the above directions. Regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act; the dispute pertains to ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. Representatives of both ... this order. Accordingly, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) in ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 is set aside and matter regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer; with the direction to decide this issue in accordance with

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 130/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

agreement, all the grounds raised in the appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the above directions. Regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act; the dispute pertains to ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. Representatives of both ... this order. Accordingly, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) in ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 is set aside and matter regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer; with the direction to decide this issue in accordance with

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 129/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

agreement, all the grounds raised in the appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the above directions. Regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act; the dispute pertains to ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. Representatives of both ... this order. Accordingly, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) in ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 is set aside and matter regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer; with the direction to decide this issue in accordance with

Puneet Katiyar, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3)(5), Kanpur

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

ITA 1007/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

short). Vide the impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2025, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. (C.1) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had also filed ... Departmental Representative for Revenue, were in agreement that the issue in dispute in the present appeal regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), with the direction to pass de novo order, if required