← 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)

Atul Kishore Trivedi, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 13/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.13/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Atul Kishore Trivedi V. Income Tax Officer -4(1) Sultanpur Road, Katra Bakkas, Income Tax Appellate Arjunganj, Lucknow-226002. Tribunal Building, Lucknow-226002. Pan:Aodpt5131L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rohit Bhalla, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 11 12 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax (Appeals), (here-in-after referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)} have erred on facts in initiation and imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 12,61,425/- against the merits, circumstances and legal aspect of the case on account

Vishal Osatwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1217/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Vishal Osatwal………………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ground Floor, 34/1U, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kol – 700019. [Pan: Aanpo2583R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-29(1), Kolkata………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.17,62,746/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Filed Revised Computation Of Income Offering Additional Income Of Rs.74,62,846/- Being Ltcg Claimed As Exempt In The Original Return Of Income. The Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 20-10-2016 Determining The Assessee'S Total Income At Rs.92,97,450/- By Making Addition Of Rs.74,62,846/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Ltcg & Disallowance Of Legal Expenses Of Rs. 3,809/-. In Respect Of Both These Vishal Osatwal Additions, The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by ld. CIT(A). 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5790/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr.DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ground that the AO in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the Act, did not specify the exact charge of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as none of the two limbs of concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars of income were striked ... relevant is not struck off. It is only in the last paragraph that there is a mention about imposing of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the appellant. Thus, I find that in the aforesaid notice, the AO had not specified any of the relevant charges either

Unipatch Rubber Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4439/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Unipatch Rubber Limited, Dcit/Acit, Building No.10, Community Centre, Vs. Circle 25(1), Saket, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aaacu0325P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250oSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80ISection 94(7)

passed u/s 250of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi. In this case, a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied vide order dated 30.03.2022, by the Ld. AO. Through this order disallowances u/s 80IC ... notice that the first notice u/s 274 of the Act dated 17.03.2020 mentioned both aspects of triggers for levying a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was further pointed out that another notice u/s 274 of the Act dated 29.06.2023 also mentioned both these aspects

Usha Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer Range 6(2), Lucknow

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 251/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal as the circumstances of the case might require or justify.” 10. In this case, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the quantum proceedings, in ITA No. 249/LKW/2024 (Quantum Appeal) for A.Y. 2013-14, we have set aside the assessment

Usha Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer Range 6(2), Lucknow

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 249/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal as the circumstances of the case might require or justify.” 10. In this case, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the quantum proceedings, in ITA No. 249/LKW/2024 (Quantum Appeal) for A.Y. 2013-14, we have set aside the assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Phpl Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1714/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 3Section 68

recompute these interests as per law at the time of giving effect to this order. Ground 4 against initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has not been pressed by the appellant. This ground is therefore dismissed. Ground 5 is general in nature and needs no adjudication and does

Cambridge Construction (Delhi) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4939/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandracambridge Construction Vs. Ito, Ward 5(3) (Delhi) Private Limited New Delhi – 110002 11, Monnet House, Masjid Moth, New Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacc0295N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. VK Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

brought forward Rs.9,65,75,575/- 2. Disallowance of current year business loss of Rs.7,00,385/- 4. The Ld. AO levied Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) dated 29.10.2021 and levied Penalty of Rs.2,70,00,000/-. P a g e | 3 Cambridge Construction (Delhi ... Income Nil (b) The Ld. AO on Page 30 of the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 260 has not initiated any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. 8. Since both the disallowances on the basis of which penalty of Rs.2,70,00,000/- have been levied

T.L. Sritharan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-14, Chennai

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

ITA 2634/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2634/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.13, Old No.1, Vs. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non Corporate Circle-14, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 033. Pan: Aepps 6766J

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 50C

authorities. TL Sritharan :- 4 -: 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The A.O. has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income based on the re- computation of capital gains. The assessee computed the capital gains

Balaram Vengadessan, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2471/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (virtual)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 2471/Chny/2025: 6. In this case, the A.O. has levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.5,17,117/- for concealment of particulars of income. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty order ... quantum addition has been confirmed . 7. | We note that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated during assessment proceeding and levied on the basis of addition made in Fra 8 2476 slaram Vengadesan rae the assessment order. We have already set aside the assessment order, therefore penalty order

Balaram Vengadessan, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2470/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (virtual)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 2471/Chny/2025: 6. In this case, the A.O. has levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.5,17,117/- for concealment of particulars of income. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty order ... quantum addition has been confirmed . 7. | We note that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated during assessment proceeding and levied on the basis of addition made in Fra 8 2476 slaram Vengadesan rae the assessment order. We have already set aside the assessment order, therefore penalty order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Axis Overseas Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2425/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

interest is calculated @ 12% on the whole total advance for AY 2013-14 amounting to disallowance of Rs. 2,67,75,667/-. Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. So, for sake of consistency in department

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 263/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act. The Ld. A.O has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB ... conditions provided u/s 27IAAB of the Act. The Id. AO has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 262/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act. The Ld. A.O has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB ... conditions provided u/s 27IAAB of the Act. The Id. AO has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 261/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act. The Ld. A.O has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB ... conditions provided u/s 27IAAB of the Act. The Id. AO has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB

DCIT 19.1 Mumbai, Lalbag Mumbai vs. Ambika Diamonds, Bkc Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5873/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

higher courts as well as the binding judgements of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in support of his ground that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed on the estimated additions. In the relied upon judgement the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bench of Income

Etesh P. Jain(Karta), Shree Darshan Pipes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

only an estimated disallowance without any cogent basis. The Appellant submit that it is a settled position in law that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied where the additions are made on the basis of estimation and not on the basis of any cogent evidence. The Appellant

Etesh Prakash Jain (Karta), Shree Darshan Pipes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5819/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

only an estimated disallowance without any cogent basis. The Appellant submit that it is a settled position in law that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied where the additions are made on the basis of estimation and not on the basis of any cogent evidence. The Appellant

Etesh Prakash Jain(HUF), Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5734/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

only an estimated disallowance without any cogent basis. The Appellant submit that it is a settled position in law that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied where the additions are made on the basis of estimation and not on the basis of any cogent evidence. The Appellant

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1906/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

Ld.AR argued and stated that the penalty imposed for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 are related to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated addition and addition was declared in return U/s 153A of the Act. The Ld. AR argued that addition was confirmed related ... section 271(1)(c) of the Act prevails that any post-search declaration not considered as self declaration which will attract the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The issue is sqarally covered in case of the Director of the assessee-company by the order