“penalty u/s 271(1)(c)”

Jagat Singh, Jind vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[A.Y 2009-10]

file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh, we deem it proper and just to restore this issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the levy of penalty afresh after

Kissan Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

grounds inter alia that :- “(i) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act in respect of addition made on account of difference in the sale amount disclosed by assessee and value as per stamp valuation authority u/s.SOC ... unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. (ii) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act in respect of disallowance of electricity expenses and treating them to be of prior period, even when relevant documents to justify

Spirit Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee had earlier filed appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). During the course of the appellate proceedings, assessee filed a letter stating that in the quantum proceedings up to the stage of Tribunal ... stands deleted / quashed from the stage of the Tribunal. Thus, there is no addition sustaining which can warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee had filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order passed by the AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c

Spirit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee had earlier filed appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). During the course of the appellate proceedings, assessee filed a letter stating that in the quantum proceedings up to the stage of Tribunal ... stands deleted / quashed from the stage of the Tribunal. Thus, there is no addition sustaining which can warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee had filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order passed by the AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c

Spirit Global Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee had earlier filed appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). During the course of the appellate proceedings, assessee filed a letter stating that in the quantum proceedings up to the stage of Tribunal ... stands deleted / quashed from the stage of the Tribunal. Thus, there is no addition sustaining which can warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee had filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order passed by the AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c

Spirit Global Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee had earlier filed appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). During the course of the appellate proceedings, assessee filed a letter stating that in the quantum proceedings up to the stage of Tribunal ... stands deleted / quashed from the stage of the Tribunal. Thus, there is no addition sustaining which can warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee had filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order passed by the AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c

DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos. 4753 & 4754/Del/2017 (For Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) Dcit Vs. M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 10(1) Su-217, Pitampura New Delhi New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccg 0954 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2021 Order Per Bench: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Learned Dr Submitted That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Year

application money and Rs.2,96,175/- on account of disallowance u/s 35D of the Act. On the aforesaid addition, the AO initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and thereafter vide order dated 23.03.2016 levied the penalty of Rs.2,91,31,443/- u/s 271(1)(c ... made and therefore subsequent to the search operations and consequent order and additions u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A would not lead to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) inspite of the explicit provisions for the same.” 2. “Whether the CIT(A) was correct in ignoring the notice u/s 271(1)(c

Kavita Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

carry more than normal risk and is not an NPA. The provision for standard assets of Rs.56,59,609/- is therefore disallowed. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of the particulars of income.” 10.1 The Ld. first appellate authority

ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi vs. Vavasi Telegance P.Ltd, New Delhi

Bench: Hon’Ble N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

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) on the grounds that appellant should not penalized merely for showing the receipt of consultancy as other income despite the fact that

M/S the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

carry more than normal risk and is not an NPA. The provision for standard assets of Rs.56,59,609/- is therefore disallowed. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of the particulars of income.” 10.1 The Ld. first appellate authority

Sehgal Packaging Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6705/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sehgal Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-44, Naraina Indl. Area, Ward-23(1), New Delhi-110028 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs3735J Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. R. K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2021

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That the ld. CIT (A) erred in law in upholding the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs.30,380/- merely on surmises and conjectures and against the facts of the case. 2. That the ld. CIT (A) erred ... total income on account of ROC fee paid towards increase in the authorized share capital. Consequent to the disallowance, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been levied by the AO. 4. We find that the page no. 2 below para 5, the Assessing Officer has also mentioned “that penalty proceedings

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in all 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']. The common ground on which penalty has been levied

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in all 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']. The common ground on which penalty has been levied

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in all 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']. The common ground on which penalty has been levied

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in all 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']. The common ground on which penalty has been levied

Green Valley Infracity Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Green Valley Infracity Pvt. Vs. Ito Ltd., C/O. Nitesh Singh, Ward-1(4), C-190, Sector-49, Noida Noida-201301 Pan : Aafcp 8389 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Kumar Tyagi, C.A. Revenue By --None-- Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Learned AR submitted that though the assessee has raised several ground but the solitary issue is with respect to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. On the date of hearing, an application for adjournment was moved by Revenue seeking an adjournment to which Learned ... submitted that the issue involved is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He further submitted that the penalty is not leviable as the enhancement order of CIT(A) which is the basis for levy of impugned penalty has been adjudicated in favour

Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Central Circle – 6, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aadcr 5053 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue By Shri Farhad Khan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee is challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the notice issued does ... order of CIT(A), the Assessing Officer after providing the assessee an opportunity to show cause as to why 8 penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied for concealment of income, and considering the same, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Sucon India Ltd, Faridabad

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2009-10

that the quantum addition was upheld by the learned CIT(A). Further, a perusal of the order clearly shows that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the instant case is fully justified. He submitted that learned CIT(A) without giving any valid reason has deleted ... cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Merely because the assessee claimed deduction which has not been accepted by the Revenue, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be attracted. If the contention of 9 the Revenue is accepted, the assessee would be liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c

Abhishek Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

made by the Assessing Officer and accordingly, notice u/s 271 read with Section 274 was issued to the assessee for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 05.12.2011. However, since the assessee has not responded to the notices and not attended the proceedings, the Assessing Officer

Shri Deshpal Singh Kohli, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Deshpal Singh Kohli, Vs Dcit, 46, Saharanpur Road, Dehradun. Dehradun. Pan: Acgpk1599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanwal Juneja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vinay Singh Rawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th January, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-4, Kanpur, Relating To The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.1,44,200/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) & Confirmed By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal.

assessee has concealed the particulars of income and has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, he has rendered himself liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. He accordingly levied penalty of Rs.1,44,200/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded ... Accountant. He submitted that merely because the addition has been sustained by the AO it does not make the assessee liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee can always make new plea. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court