← 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)

Sudha Naren Seth, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(3) (Erstwhile ITO, 11(3)(3)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5671/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Reliance Petroproducts Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC) had held that the assessee cannot be held to be liable for concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act if the legitimate claim has been sought to be disallowed. Hence in any case, even on merits, the penalty u/s

M/S. Chemstar Organics (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Baroda

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

ITA 2493/AHD/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2493 & 2494/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Chemstar Organics (India) Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Ltd. Baroda. Vs. 4Th Floor, Pnb House, Sir P. M. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc9210F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Modi Revenue By: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 1998-99 & 2010-11. Ita. No.2493/Ahd/2014 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.06.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1998-99 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271

assessee to be made aware as to which of the two is being put against him for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, so that the assessee can defend accordingly. It is in this background that one has to appreciate the preliminary plea ... canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. A.Ys.1998-99 & 2010-11 CIT-DR and find

DCIT 10 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Maharashtra Electronic Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8051/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 10(2)(2) V. M/S. Maharashtra Electronics Room No. 216-A Corporation Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. Am-3, Midc Cross Road “A” Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaacm4980A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri R.C. Jain Assessee By : Department By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

Maharashtra Electronics Corporation Limited 3.2 Before Hon. Supreme Court the question arose whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for making a Wrong claim was imposable and the dept relied on Dharmendra Textiles Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) to argue that penalty was automatic for a wrong claim, HELD

Pasargad Techn Ologies Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1595/DEL/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Sachdeva, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

pertaining to Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. The common grievance of the assessee in both these appeals relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act']. 3. Representatives were heard at length. Case records carefully perused ... peculiar facts of the appeals under consideration are that vide order dated 29.03.2012, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,65,55,859/-. 5. The assessee agitated the levy before the ld. CIT(A). 6. After considering the facts and submissions

Pasargad Techn Ologies Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1594/DEL/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Sachdeva, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

pertaining to Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. The common grievance of the assessee in both these appeals relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act']. 3. Representatives were heard at length. Case records carefully perused ... peculiar facts of the appeals under consideration are that vide order dated 29.03.2012, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,65,55,859/-. 5. The assessee agitated the levy before the ld. CIT(A). 6. After considering the facts and submissions

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3117/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri C.N. Prasadasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income of Rs. 12,45,65,094/- including therein addition of Rs. 48,44,976/- on account of unexplained investment in paintings. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied on 29.9.2015. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty and directed the AO to restrict the penalty in respect ... challenging the levy of penalty. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds: 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the AO. The penalty levied is wrong and bad in law and should be deleted. 2. Whether the penalty

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5022/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

profit; and iv) Other common grievance relates to th charging of interest u/s 234A, B, C, D, 244A and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Vide application dated 16.12.2021, the assessee raised an additional ground in the captioned appeals as under: “Ground 1.1 - That

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5021/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

profit; and iv) Other common grievance relates to th charging of interest u/s 234A, B, C, D, 244A and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Vide application dated 16.12.2021, the assessee raised an additional ground in the captioned appeals as under: “Ground 1.1 - That

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5020/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

profit; and iv) Other common grievance relates to th charging of interest u/s 234A, B, C, D, 244A and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Vide application dated 16.12.2021, the assessee raised an additional ground in the captioned appeals as under: “Ground 1.1 - That

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4561/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

profit; and iv) Other common grievance relates to th charging of interest u/s 234A, B, C, D, 244A and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Vide application dated 16.12.2021, the assessee raised an additional ground in the captioned appeals as under: “Ground 1.1 - That

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4560/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

profit; and iv) Other common grievance relates to th charging of interest u/s 234A, B, C, D, 244A and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Vide application dated 16.12.2021, the assessee raised an additional ground in the captioned appeals as under: “Ground 1.1 - That

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4559/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

profit; and iv) Other common grievance relates to th charging of interest u/s 234A, B, C, D, 244A and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Vide application dated 16.12.2021, the assessee raised an additional ground in the captioned appeals as under: “Ground 1.1 - That

Sheetal Mehra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

ITA 906/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

pending before the First Appellate Authority (ld. CIT(A)). 4. Now, before passing of the fresh assessment orders, AO has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of additions made in the original assessment orders. Even the ld. CIT (A) did not had the benefit

Sheetal Mehra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

ITA 905/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

pending before the First Appellate Authority (ld. CIT(A)). 4. Now, before passing of the fresh assessment orders, AO has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of additions made in the original assessment orders. Even the ld. CIT (A) did not had the benefit

Sheetal Mehra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

ITA 904/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

pending before the First Appellate Authority (ld. CIT(A)). 4. Now, before passing of the fresh assessment orders, AO has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of additions made in the original assessment orders. Even the ld. CIT (A) did not had the benefit

Adarsh Public School, Noida vs. JCIT, Range- 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 106/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld. Commissioner Who Vide Order Dated 30.03.2017 In Appeal, Enhanced The Income Of The Assessee To The Tune Of Rs. 1,04,85,689/- Which Was The Gross Receipt Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year Under Consideration .

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chourasia, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2011-12, whereby the ld. Commissioner imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, to the tune of Rs. 1,04,85,689/- @ 100% of the quantum of income determined by him. 2. In this case, assessment

Dy CIT - 32(1), Mumbai vs. Naresh Traders & Suresh Traders (Joint Venture), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 448/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-32(1) बिधम/ Naresh Traders & Suresh Room No.702, 7Th Floor, Traders (Joint Venture) Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 39A, Ganjawala Apt., Svp Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaan4364R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N. Pai Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The It. Act, 1961, Of Rs.27,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Has Correctly Held That A.Y.2009-10 The Assessee Bas Failed To Substantiate The Transactions Claimed In Its Return Of Income Thereby Evaded Taxes To That Extent.”

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. PaiFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

without appreciating the fact that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its return of Income thereby making himself liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act” 4. “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon‟ble ITAT is requested to entertain this appeal ... bills produced. Assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate. Reason good enough for addition may not be sufficient enough for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In this case furnishing of inaccurate particulars has been not been conclusively established by the Assessing Officer, therefore, in such a case penalty

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

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

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

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

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

Income Tax(Appeals)-44, Mumbai [in short 'the CIT(A)’] dated 26/07/2019 for the assessment year 2004-05, confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short 'the Act'). 2 2. The assessee in appeal has assailed levy of penalty u/s 271(1

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

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

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

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

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

assessee to be made aware as to which of the two is being put against him for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, so that the assessee can defend accordingly. It is in this background that one has to appreciate the preliminary plea ... canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue

Manmohan Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 45(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 8380/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 68

8380/Del/2019, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. It is contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,27,733/-. 2. It is contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the violation of principles of natural ... that the CIT(A) has not appreciated the reasonable cause and the complete absence of mens rea while confirming the levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c). 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.” 12. As I have