“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)

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

cannot be ignored or varied or substituted without obtaining valuation report form DVO 5. The learned AO has erred in levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as the penalty would be leviable if the assessee conceals particulars of his income or furnishes inaccurate particulars thereof. Moreover ... assessee against the orders passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee, both on merits and also confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, both the appeals are emanating from a common issue for consideration, both the appeals filed by the assessee

Chembond Material Technologies Limited (Formerly Know As Chembond Chemicals Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5229/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren P TalatiFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR DR)

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

order dated 27/03/2019. 2. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The Ld.AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the addition of Rs.45,55,004/- disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The said addition

Shri V. Natarajan (Individual), Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1801/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

from going into the merits of individual additions. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C being consequential, and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) being independent, do not survive in view of the deletion of additions. In view of the foregoing discussion and respectfully following the decision

Varadappan Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1535/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

Deepti Shreyas Talpade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(5) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhrideepti Shreyas Talpade Vs. Ito Ward 24(1)(5) 701, 7Th Floor, Dlh Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Enclave, 90’ Wide Dp Road, Piramal Chamber, Near Windmere Building, Lalbaug, Parel, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpt6420L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

Appellant 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in wrongly initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and also wrongly charging interest u/s 234A, B & C. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income

Shreyas Anil Talpade, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 6913/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69B

presumption basis. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in wrongly initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and also wrongly charging interest u/s 234A, B & C. 5) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3084/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the extent of Rs. 55,07,79,154/-, I am satisfied that it attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated in this regard ... furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed particulars of its income to this extent. I am satisfied that it attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are intimated in this regard.” 2.1 Further

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3083/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Sh.Mohit Batola, Dehradun vs. ACIT, CC, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/DDN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mohit Batola Vs Acit 155, Village Miyanwala Central Circle P.O.-Harrawala, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aftpb3533M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Verendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 Order

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

1,26,41,300/- and INR 4,12,050/- against returned income of INR 12,72,956/-. Thereafter, the impugned order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed wherein penalty of Rs.8,46,856/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate ... stereotyped manner without applying any mind which is bad in law, hence is not a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars

H K Infraventure Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 120/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. H. K. Infraventure Pvt V. Acit, Central Circle Ltd Allahabad 17, Industrial Colony, Naini 38, Mahatma Gandhi Allahabad-211008. Marg, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aacch6249K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. H. K. Infraventure Pvt V. Assistant Commissioner Ltd Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Industrial Colony, Naini Income Tax Department Allahabad-211008. Nfac Delhi. Pan: Aacch6249K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, (Application) Respondent By: Shri. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, (Application)For Respondent: Shri. Amalendu Nath Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 50C

assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (C) In ITA. No.120/ALLD/2025 for A.Y. 2015-16, the matter pertains to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the foregoing paragraph of this order, we have restored the matter regarding the addition of Rs.18

M/S.H.K.Infraventures Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

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

ITA 28/ALLD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, (Application)For Respondent: Shri. Amalendu Nath Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 50C

Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat.

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

ITA 918/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat, Ito, Ward 1(2)(1), 11-1572, Radhakrishna Textile Aayakar Bhavan, Majuragate, Market, Ring Road, Vs. Surat-395007. Surat-395002. Pan No. Awgps 7288 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh C. Shah, CA

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-2014, raising following grounds: 1. The Ld AO was not justifying in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, and also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same ... justıfying in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for Rs 9,55,042/-, also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. ITA No. 918/SRT/2025 2 Madangopal Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are Briefly

Jetsynthesys Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 346/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jetsynthesys Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Limited, 101-104, 1St Floor, Metro House, Mangaldas Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaicm1358A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of The Act It Be Held That The Penalty Imposed U/S 270A

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271(1)(c)

Ahmedabad vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 322 (SC), wherein under identical facts Hon’ble Court deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the bench to delete the penalty of Rs.2,74,100/- imposed u/s 270A ... case of CIT, Ahmedabad vs. 6 Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 322 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Court deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under :- “10. It was tried to be suggested that section 14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions

Shashikala Shivashankar Gujare, Solapur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1189/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1189/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shashikala Shivashankar V Dcit, Gujare, S. Circle-1, Solapur. 48 Laxmi Nagar, Jule Solapur, Maharashtra – 413004. Pan: Bhnpg2807E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs Deepa Khare - Advocate Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 16/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2013-14, Dated 18.03.2025 Emanating From Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 24.02.2017. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Grounds Of Appeal

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

No.1189/PUN/2025 [A] “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs 8,92,000/- in respect of income duly disclosed voluntarily in the return in response to notice u/s 148. 2. Whether

Rnt Associates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5221/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vishal ShahFor Respondent: 29/10/2025

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

penalty Ld. AO of not specifying the limb under which the penalty Ld. AO of not specifying the limb under which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is to be issued, i.e. furnishing inaccurate u/s 271(1)(c) is to be issued, i.e. furnishing inaccurate u/s 271(1)(c

Yashita Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT(A), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6200/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6200/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Yashita Finance Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 8-A, Commissioner Lane, Civil Lines, Ward-27(4), New Delhi-110054 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacy3088P Assessee By: Ms. Tinya, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Tinya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)

sole substantive ground raised herein, it emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have levied the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.5,76,947/- which pertains to various disallowance u/s 14A, legal and professional expenditure, interest on refunds u/s

K P Enterprises, Etawah vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Firozabad

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

ITA 341/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

reduced the same also on estimation basis @ 7%. . We observe that the Assessing Officer made the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act@ 100% tax sought to be evaded i.e. Rs.1,68,789.which was sustained by the ld. CIT (A). We observe that the assessee is aggrieved against confirmation ... Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 7. Thus, as noted above, the issue as to whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be levied on estimated quantum addition is no longer res-integra, therefore, we are inclined to direct the deletion of the penalty levied

Asha Panagariya, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 998/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 250

satisfied that the assessee concealed the particulars of her income by Rs. 12,00,000/-. Hence, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealed the particulars of her income.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order confirming the action

Kishan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1155/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 69ASection 69C

u/s 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has concealed the income he is also liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The assessee has non compliance of various notices issued, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income

Shri Nissar Ahmad Bulla, Baramula vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 350/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 426/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nissar Ahmad Bulla Ito Sopore, Iqbal Nagar, Sopore बनाम/ Ward-1 S.O Badam Bagh, Srinagar Vs. Baramulla-193201 (J&K) "ायी लेखा सं./Pan. Ajrpb-8879-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo (Ca)- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () In Aforesaid Twin Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, 1. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Quantum Addition For Rs.22.67 Lacs & Confirmation Of Consequential Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) For Rs.5.25 Lacs. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 14 Days In Quantum Appeal Ita No.350/Asr/2024, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Condonation

For Appellant: Shri. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(C)

Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, 1. the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of quantum addition for Rs.22.67 Lacs and confirmation of consequential penalty u/s 271(1)(C) for Rs.5.25 Lacs. The registry has noted delay of 14 days in quantum appeal ITA No.350/Asr/2024, the condonation of which has been sought