“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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 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) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.Achal Sharma. CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vijay Mehta.AR

Section 114Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)

issue of non-submission of bank account statement of the assessee, and therefore income was assessable to tax as well as penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied for concealment of income was in accordance with law?' 6. "The Appellant prays that the order ... remedy for loss of revenue and it is also held that willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Supreme Court also held in the case of Chairman SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund, (2006) 5 Supreme Court cases

Blues Innovations India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1331/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalblues It Innovations Vs. Ito – 12(1)(3) India Pvt Ltd., Ab 145A, Aayakar B-101, Bhumi Enclave, Bhavan, Mahaveer Nagar, Mumbai -400020. Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4562D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Ld.DR 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 Act by the A.O based on the assessment order under section 143 of the Act. We find the A.O has made adhoc ... sales in the books of accounts. 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 of income

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

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

ITA 963/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. Shri Dilip J Thakkar Central Circle – 6(4) 12/22B, Acropolis, Room No. 1925, 19Th Malabar Hills, Floor, Air India Bldg, Mumbai – 400006. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt9000H Appellant .. Respondent The Dcit, Vs. Smt Indira D. Thakkar Central Circle – 6(4) 12/22B, Acropolis, Room No. 1925, 19Th Malabar Hills, Floor, Air India Bldg, Mumbai – 400006. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt3389E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Takkar.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.G.Mehta.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 149(1)

taxed as concealed income for the A.Y 1999-00 relevant to the F.Y 1998-99 as mentioned above on protective basis. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately. 9.12 Further addition of GBP 14,400 is made in the hands of Assessee Smt Indira D Thakkar. Unon maturity ... 970/Mum/2020 Shri Dilip Thakkar & Smit Indiar D Thakkar, Mumbai. assessment year in the AY. 2004-05 relevant to the F.Y, 2003-04. Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is initiated separately.” 3. Finally the A.O. has assessed the total income of Rs.27,69,350/-and passed the order u/sec143(3) r.w.s147

Mr. Budnar Jayakar Shetty, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. PriyadrshiniBasaganni, D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 57Section 69A

against the order of CIT(A)-2, Panaji dated 2.12.2021 for the assessment year 2016-17, wherein he confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. 2. Facts of the case are that assessee filed original return of income ... first ground of appeal is allowed.” 3. Now the assessee is in appeal before us with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that the penalty cannot be sustained in view of the deletion of addition

Mukund Trikamlal Parmar, Hyderabad vs. ITO 32(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1079/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhmukund Trikamlal Vs. Ito-32(2)(3), Parmar, C/O P. Murali & Room No. 305, 3 Rd Floor, Co. Chartered C-11, Pratyakshkar Accountants, 6-3- Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 655/2/3, Somajiguda, Complex, Bandra (E), Hyderabad – 500082 Mumbai - 500051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaapp9619E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Laxmikanth RathiFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 13Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

accommodation entry. Therefore, the A.O has treated the F &O loss of Rs.7,00,98,571/- as non genuine and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of correct nature/particulars of his income to the extent of Rs.7,00,98,571/- at Rs.1

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

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

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

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

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

facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Re2,56,280/- which was levied on the addition of Rs. 9,21,532/- total bogus purchase. 2. Whether on the facts ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs 2,56,280/- in spite of the penalty was levied in respect of addition of Rs.9,21,532/- made on the basis of information received from Sales

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

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

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

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was absent and there was no concealment of income and consequently the order of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The authorities below failed to appreciate the fact ... penalty u/s.271(1)(c) rws 274 of the Act for concealing the particulars of income as noted above and I hereby levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs.2,62,650/- at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The working of the penalty is as under

M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 150/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 134/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito-17(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Poonam Shanti 1St Floor, Room No.115, Developers Vs. 66-B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Chamber Kautilya Bhavan G. Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, 23-E, Sayed Abdulla Brelvi Bandra (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai Samachar 400051. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 149/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poonam Shanti बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Developers Income Tax-1(3) Vs. 66-B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Room No.905, 9Th Floor, Old Chamber 23-E, Sayed Cgo Building, Pratistha Abdulla Brelvi Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Marine Mumbai Samachar Marg, Lines, Mumbai-400020. Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aamfp0302F

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Tribunal in the case of M/s. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA. No.93/Mum/2021 & 151/Mum/2021 for A.Y.2013-14 vide order dated 23.12.2021 deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein such addition was made u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was on account of bogus purchases on estimation ... basis. On the same ratio, we direct the AO to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Poonam Shanti Developers & Poonam Mega Developers Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

M/S Poonam Shanti Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 149/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

ITO - 172(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Shanti Devlopers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 135/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

ITO - 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Shanti Devlopers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 134/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rational Art & Press Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2331/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Rational Art & Press Pvt. Central Circle-8(1), Ltd., Vs. Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 21, Nirmal, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr7185E Appellant Respondent : Mr. T. Shankar.Dr Revenue By : Mr. Siddharth Kothari. Ar Assessee By : 18/05/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of : 26/05/2022 Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: 18/05/2022For Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar.DR

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

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be deleted merely on the basis of defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act, ignoring the pronouncement of the Hon’ble High Court ... course of hearing has called for the details from the A.O. on the issue of initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the facts, circumstances judicial decisions and the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court decision and deleted the penalty and allowed the assessee

Dy CIT, Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. Priyanka Chopra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 479/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 16(1) V. Priyanka Chopra Room No. 439, 4Th Floor B-807, Raj Classic Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Yari Road, Versova Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Acxpc1741R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Joijode Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh JoijodeFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani

Section 132Section 132ASection 2Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

fallacious in so far that there was no rebuttal to the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer for levying 300% of penalty u/s 271(1)C) of evaded taxes and nowhere any new arguments or substantiating evidence filed by assessee to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer? 1.4 Whether ... facts and in law in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on addition of Rs. 50 lakhs which was confirmed by Ld.ITAT in quantum appeal?” 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that Department is in appeal against

Dy.C.I.T. 5(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Chetan Ramaniklal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2466/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Circle 5(1)(1) Vs. Shri Chetan Ramniklal R.No. 568, Aaykar Shah, 103 Shreeji Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chambers, Tata Road, Mumbai- 400 020 No.2, Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aajps7227C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sandeep RaiFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

before us: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.3,76,20,132/- without considering the fact that the ITAT’s order of deleting

Mr. Jaikishan S. Vaswani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1549/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kanti.T.A. No.1549/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Jaikishan S. Vaswani…………….……..….…..………………….……Appellant 71, Maker Towers, ‘L’ Block, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. [Pan:Adzpv0486F] Vs. Acit-17(2), Mumbai.…………………….…………...……………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shashi Bekal, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S N Kabra Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 18, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg:

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

I.T.A. No.1549/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Jaikishan S. Vaswani view, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, under similar circumstances in the own case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10, the Tribunal vide order dated

Sri. H.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 601/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

available in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) are different. It related to the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may be levied either for “concealment of particulars of income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”. Since

Sri. M.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 600/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

S.F.Dyes /Firm, Mumbai vs. A.C.Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2023/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 S.F. Dyes/Firm A.C. Circle 17(1), First Floor, Hague Building, 9 Sprott Bandra Kurla Complex Road ,Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aacfs 5153 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shiv Prakash, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(ii)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was withdrawn by the assessee on 20.10.2016. In view of the fact, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act holding that the assessee in default for furnishing inaccurate S.F. Dyes/Firms 5 particulars of the income ... rectification of the assessed income on its own motion. In fact, only after a show cause notice issued for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO in August 2016, did the appellant give the entire details whereby the mistake apparent from record to the tune of 20Lakhs

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Bajranglal Bhikaram Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2482/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2482, 2483 & 2484/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2011-12, 2010-11 & 2009-10) Acit-17(1) Vs. Bajranglal Bhikaram Room No. 117, Mittal, 1St Floor, G-Block, 310, Gokul Building, Kautiliya Bhavan, Iron Market, Masjid Bandra Kurla Complex Bunder, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400009. Pan/Gir No. : Afgpm0969R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Love Kumar.Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Love Kumar.DRFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)c) of Rs. 3,74,872/- which was levied on the addition of Rs. 11,02,886/- being 4% of the total bogus purchase ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,74,872/- inspite of the penalty levied on the amount of Rs. 11,02,886/- which was made on the basis of information

Income Tax Officer WD -3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Navjivan Engineering Works, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 58/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanita Nos. 58 & 59/Mum/2022 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward 3(2) M/S Navjeevan 2Ndfloor,Ranimansion, Engineering Works Murbad, Road, D-18, Midc, Phase-Ii Kalyan(W)-42131 Manpada Road, Maharashtra Dombivali (E) Maharashtra – 421204 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabfn2813K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Love Kumar.Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Love Kumar.DRFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

estimated income/gross profit @ 25% on bogus purchases. 8. We are of the opinion that when the addition is on estimated basis, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on such adhoc estimated income. The disallowance of purchases on ad-hoc basis does not tantamount to furnishing