← 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)

Vinod (Ratan) Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

VINOD (RATAN) SUHALKA VS ACIT, CC-1, UDAIPUR ITA NO. 241/JODH/2019 - A.Y. 2007-08 1. The order of ld. CIT(A) confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.12,05,028/- is bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the case where ... also unjustified in the facts of the case. ITA NO. 241/JODH/2019 - A.Y. 2008-09 1. The order of ld. CIT(A) confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.23,45,310/- is bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the case where

Orient Clothing Company Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8931/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jeetender Chand, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind which is bad in law, hence cannot be considered valid notices sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore we are of the considered view that under these circumstances, the penalty is not leviable as held

Kalinga Cables and Conduits Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-41(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 26/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sabharwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

noted above, the assessee seek to raise a legal issue that in absence of any specific show cause notice, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is wholly misconceived and intangible, therefore, such notice cannot be made basis for holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c

Smt. Zarnaben Vibhashbhai Sheth, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 55/RJT/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jan 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

Officer based on the above facts that assessee has concealed income of Rs.5,06,000/- and rightly therefore the AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax to be evaded for Rs.1,52,809/-. The appellant accordingly do not succeed in the appeal

M/S Harshvardhan International, Mumbai vs. Asstt. C.I.T.-20(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2595/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Harshavardhan Vs. Acit – 20(1) International Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Sunshine Mumbai – 400012. Plaza, Naigaum Cross Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400014. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaefh3134J Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Ms.Mrugakshi K Joshi.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) – Delhi / Cit(A) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Mrugakshi K Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

basis of the merits of the case. Ground No. 2: STRIKING OFF 1. The learned AO & CIT (A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c), although in the show cause Notice u/s. 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c), the charge of concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars was not struck ... before levying and confirming the concealment penalty, as under what charge the penalty was being initiated was not ascertained. Ground No. 3: PENALTY u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,00,000/- 1. The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in levying a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) with respect

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1391/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. ANN L.Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

/Date of Pronouncement : 23-12-2022 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai [CIT(A)] vide order dated 11.02.2016, the assessee

DCIT Cir-1, Kalyan vs. Shyam K Gyanchandani, Ulhasnagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2560/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain
Section 271(1)(c)

thereafter this Tribunal restricted it further to 12.5% i.e. of Rs.29,54,666/- vide order dated 13.09.2017. Thereafter, the AO has levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income and levied penalty of Rs.9,12,991/- which ... been deleted by Ld. CIT(A). We note that the AO has imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the estimated 4 A.Y. 2010-11 Shyam K Gyanchandani income made by him,[ which has been restricted by the Tribunal, supra] on the alleged fault of assessee filing

Mohd Arif Hamidulla Khan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-38, Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 1895/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Ahuja, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

Mohd. Arif Hamidulla Khan 6) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and interest charged u/s 234 A, B, C & D. (B) Relief Prayed: The appellant therefore prays follows, 1. To quash the order

Shri. Poonmaram K. Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1953/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Poonam Vs. Ito – 19(2)(5) K.Prajapati Matrumandir, Room 81/83, Room No. 14, 4 No. 210, Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Prabhu Mumbai – 400007. Shri Rammandir Marg, Mumbai – 400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agmpp5641C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.M Gang.Ar Respondent By : Mr. B. Bagchi.Dr

For Appellant: Mr. P.M Gang.ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Bagchi.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Poonam K. Prajapati., Mumbai. Act by the A.O based on the assessment order under section 144 r.w.s ... addition to the extent of 9%. We are of the opinion, that where the addition is sustained on the estimated basis no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied. The disallowance of purchases on ad-hoc/estimated basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

Viveck Mathreja, Mumbai vs. ACIT National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalviveck Mathreja Vs. Acit, National Face Less Plot No. 5, Trishul Assessment Centre Hatkesh Co-Op, Hsg.Sty, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Road No. 6, Jvpd, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Ville Parle (W), Complex, Bandra Mumbai – 400 056 Mumbai - 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Acxpm8278M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N.R. AggarwalFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Rs.1,29,840. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even though A.O issued penalty notice without striking off irrelevant limb

Sushil Kumar Paul, Siliguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 271A

conditions provided u/s 271AAB of the Act. The ld. 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

M/S Cyber Infosystem and Technologies P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 921/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Cyber Infosystem Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3) & Technologies Pvt R.No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Ltd,396, Kamath Air India Bldg, Industrial Estate, Veer Nariman Point, Savarkar Marg, Mumbai – 400021. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc2176K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Priyavart Gupta.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Deepika Arora.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A))- 53, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S Cyber Infosystem & Technologies P Ltd, Mumbai. 1) That, The Notice Issued Under Section 271(1)(C) Read With Section 274 Of The Act & The Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Are Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Mr.Priyavart Gupta.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Deepika Arora.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

compliance to notices in the Assesseement proceedings and penalty proceedings, the A.O. has dealt on the provisions and facts has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.53,00,000/- vide order dated 20.03.2019. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order the assessee has filed an appeal

ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Trikamji A Chatwani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1757/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Central Circle – Vs. Late Shri Trikamji A 1(2)Room No. 906, 9Th Chatwani Floor, Annexe Bldg, 6Th Floor, Citi Point, Pratistha Bhavan, Telli Galli, Andheri Church Gate, (E), Mumbai – 400069 Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapc4783G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.H.N.Singh.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Satish Mody.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.H.N.Singh.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Satish Mody.AR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

153A of the Act dated 30.03.2014. 4. Subsequently the AO has initiated penalty proceedings and issued show cause notice for levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Whereas the AO has dealt on the issues of scrutiny proceedings. The assessee has filed reply to the show cause

Rajan Kalimuthu, Chennai vs. CIT, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 336/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 24-03-2022 confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. This is second round of appeal, since the issue was restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) by Tribunal in ITA No.2900/Chny/2018 order

Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 2976/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. V. Balaji (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

accordingly eligible for claim under section 43B of the Act. 8. Erred in law and on facts in Initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 8.1 Erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(C) pf the Act that an adjustment which has resulted

M/S A & A Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2544/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharya & A Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jt. Cit (Osd), Circle-1(1) 6/A Sindhu House, Aaykar Bhavan Naanbhoy Lane, Fort, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aafca8628J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Prakash Jotwani Respondent By : Avneesh Tiwari Date Of Hearing 29.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Avneesh Tiwari
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

order passed the NFAC, Delhi dated 15.09.2022 for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “Ground No.1: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.17,71,580/-: The ld. CIT(A) while passing the order dated 15.09.2022 erred in holding in para 9 that the appeal

M/S. D.R. Plastics, Mumbai vs. ITO WD, 21(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1542/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S D.R. Plastics Vs. Ito, Ward 21(1)(4) 26, Ideal Industrial Piramal Chambers Estate, Madhuradas Mumbai - 400012 Compound Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfd7223N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: MrugakshiFor Respondent: Megha Bhargav
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

Plastics Vs.ITO, Ward-21(1)(4) “Ground No. 1: Striking Off The learned Assessing Officer & CIT (A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) when in the show cause Notice or in the Assessment the charge of concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars was not struck off or ascertained ... before levying and confirming the concealment penalty, as under what charge the penalty was being initiated was not ascertained Ground No. 2: Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of 2,17,095/- The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs.2,17,095/- with respect

DCIT -32(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Adinathay Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1508/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1508/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Adinathya Dcit- 32(1), Enterprises, R. No. 702, 7Th Floor, बिधम/ Shop No. 6, Harjas Chs Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Ltd. Divine Home Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra Colony, Borivali (W)M (East), Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 103 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaqfa1188F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Dumane, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 26.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.12.2021, Passed By Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Dumane, Ld
Section 271(1)(c)

purchases, i.e. Rs. 9,24,124/-. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 1,15,516/- was sustained. 5. Now the AO has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing the particulars of income and levied penalty of Rs. 40,000/-. Ld CIT(A) following the certain decisions of the Tribunal

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, West Bengal vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-

ITA 2090/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 2090/मुं/2022 ("न. व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1969/मुं/2022 ("न. व. 2010-11) Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017 Pan: Aaace-6607-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(4), 9Thfloor, Old Cgo Building, M.K.Road,Mumbai- 400 020 ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sukanya Jayaram ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Heliwal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -47, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 16/06/2022 Common For The Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11, Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms.Sukanya JayaramFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal
Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Mumbai [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 16/06/2022 common for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11, confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 2 ITA NO.1969/MUM/2022(A.Y.2010-11) 2. Shri Yogesh Thar appearing on behalf of the assessee ... order dated 15/11/2022. 3. Shri Ashish Heliwal representing the Department fairly admitted that the additions made in the assessment order on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied has been deleted by the Tribunal. 4. Both sides heard. Both sides are unanimous in stating that

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-1(40, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-

ITA 1969/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 2090/मुं/2022 ("न. व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1969/मुं/2022 ("न. व. 2010-11) Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017 Pan: Aaace-6607-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(4), 9Thfloor, Old Cgo Building, M.K.Road,Mumbai- 400 020 ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sukanya Jayaram ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Heliwal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -47, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 16/06/2022 Common For The Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11, Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms.Sukanya JayaramFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal
Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Mumbai [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 16/06/2022 common for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11, confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 2 ITA NO.1969/MUM/2022(A.Y.2010-11) 2. Shri Yogesh Thar appearing on behalf of the assessee ... order dated 15/11/2022. 3. Shri Ashish Heliwal representing the Department fairly admitted that the additions made in the assessment order on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied has been deleted by the Tribunal. 4. Both sides heard. Both sides are unanimous in stating that