“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)

C.I. Finlease Private Limited, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 397/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

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

account of “undisclosed business income”. For this addition, the AO also initiated proceeding for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide notice dated 19.03.2015 and ultimately passed penalty-order dated 27.03.2018 imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,10,000/-. Aggrieved by penalty so imposed, the assessee filed a separate ... sustainable, there cannot be a case of concealing particulars of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to trigger the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In that view of matter, the AO is wrong to invoke the provision of section 271(1)(c) and impose penalty. We, therefore, delete

Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani, Adipur vs. ITO Ward - 1, Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani Vs. Ito, Ward - 1 Plot No. 368, Wd – 2/B, Adipur – Kutch-370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं.At/Pan/Gir No.: Afvpd8813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

furnished inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealed particulars of income, therefore, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1(c) of the Act. Therefore. I find that in penalty order u/s 271 (1)(C) of the Income Tax Act 1961, the Assessing Officer ... Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1. Belgaum [2021] 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom), wherein the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was deleted on account of defective penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that assessment order

Shivendu Shekhar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward6(5), Patna

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

ITA 689/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

NFAC, Delhi order u/s 250 of the Act dated 25.01.2024 on his e-mail ID or phone where the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. Assessing Officer was confirmed, despite of the fact that all the communication details like email ID and contact

Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 637/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 43B

u/s 43B(f) of the Act which was upheld by the CIT(A) and which is the subject matter for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. So far as the issue relating to the levy of penalty on the addition of Rs.11 ... submits that the issue of disallowance u/s 43B was a legal issue and the two opinions were clearly possible and therefore, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was leviable and accordingly, the penalty levied may kindly be deleted. 4] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete

Smt. Soni Sonu Mirchandani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2325/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2325/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Smt. Soni Sonu Mirchandani, Vs Acit, F-166, Malcha Marg, Anand Central Circle-5, Niketan, New Delhi-110021 New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqpm7786H Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10, Arises Against The Cit(A)-24, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1073130044(1) Dated 11.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

have been reproduced in para 2.1 above. Ground Nos. 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2, 2.1 and 2.2 are related to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and all are dealt with together in the following paragraphs. 4.1 In the case the appellant field return of income on 28.07.2009 declaring ... Gain. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the reply of the appellant in course of penalty proceedings and thereafter imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 10,19,700/- on the appellant. 4.8 It is pertinent to refer to the order

Shri Anantanath Alpasankhyatar Vividh Uddeshagal Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niy, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 6/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 006/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Anantanath Alpasankhyatar Vivid Uddheshagal Souhardha Sahakari Sangh Niyamit [‘Saavusssn’] 1738, Anantnath Building, Jain Galli, Main Rd., Kannur Niyamit Kalloli, Kalloli, Belagavi. Pan : Aagts1962B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Gokak, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sachin Nichal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed Against Din & Order 1070608483(1) Dt. 25/11/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Penalty Dt. 23/03/2022 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi [‘Ld. Nfeac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2009-10 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Sachin Nichal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

upon which are forewarned to the parties present. 4. The only dispute and the strength upon which the Revenue imposed & sustained the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act revolves around ‘furnishing in accurate particulars of income’ in the return of income filed by the assessee. In view therefore ... appellant has de-facto ceased to be ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars’ thus giving no-power or sanction to invoke & impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For said reasons, we set-aside impugned order of Ld. NFAC and delete the impugned penalty in its entirety. The solitary ground

Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1488/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Giya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80P

following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any found of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... found to be incorrect, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of levying the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that merely making a wrong claim does not amount to furnishing

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 691/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)

Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

additional assessment depreciation claimed in revised return Assessed income u/s 147 6573180 6993451 7496690 8925790 10337690 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied. 556199 432600 527620 894515 1201374 5.2 We note that the additional income was offered in the return filed under section 148. No incriminating documents indicating suppression or bogus

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 690/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)

Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)

Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. Dcitl Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 687/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)

Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai PAN (HUF), Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.958/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai Pan (Huf) The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) बनाम 703-, Pyramid Tower Rajkot. Bansi Park Vs. Amin Marg Rajkot 360 001. Pan : Aaohs 9548 F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.SR.DR

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

details furnished by the assessee is found to be incorrect or erroneous or false and as such question of initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, does not arise. In order to justify levy of penalty there must be some material or circumstances leading to reasonable conclusion ... Saree Museum 187 ITR 147 (Bom) held that; “mere addition to income on estimated basis would not constitute basis for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, unless the revenue proves the ingredients of concealment or that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars." The Hon'ble High Court

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

attached while filing my return of income. 4.4 The AO further vide question No.6 show caused the Assessee as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act “is not attracted”. (emphasized by us) 5. The Assessee in response to aforesaid show cause/question replied as under ... revised computation of income. Since the return could not revise as was filed after due date. Hence, I request not to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Though the AO considered the aforesaid claim and answers given by the Assessee to the specific questions raised

V. M. Maniyar Exports, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1368/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1368/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) V.M.Maniyar Exports Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.103-104, Surat Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat Vs. Special Economic Zone, Gidc, Sachin,Surat-394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifv 6884 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 10ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)

give any justification or acceptable explanation for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the appellant filed present appeal before the Tribunal ... that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate. The addition or disallowance in the assessment proceedings would not automatically lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The addition made by the AO was on the basis of the return filed by the assessee. Hence, there

Mr Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 2483/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Singha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. Subsequently, by an order dated 23.09.2015 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs.13,44,580/-. 4. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed ... adjudication of this appeal. In the response filed to the notices issued, the appellant has submitted that the notice for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the 1.T.Act, 1961 is ambiguous and vague because in the notice both furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

Kalpana Dilip Mehta As Legal Heir of Dilip D Mehta, Mumbai vs. JCIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. C.A. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C of the Act. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable if the AO is satisfied during the course of proceedings under the Act that any person has concealed the particulars of his income ... Rs.19,48,46,625/-. I am of the considered view and satisficed that this is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, is worked out at Rs.65498600/- as under: Minimum penalty @ 100% : Rs.6,54,98,527/- Maximum penalty @300% : Rs.19

Ascot Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1-, Thane

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

ITA 4644/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MarwahaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeals) as well as td. Assessing Officer was grossly erred in imposing the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) for the disallowance of expenses without any finding that claim of expenses was bogus 3) For that on the facts and circumstances

Ascot Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Thane

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

ITA 4643/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MarwahaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rupesh Mahendra Kankariya, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Ahmednahgar, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 465/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.465/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rupesh Mahendra Kankariya, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Ahmednagar. B Namrata Marbles, Tilak Road, Ahmednagar- 414001. Pan : Arspk8493L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Kimaya Kudva Revenue By Shri Milind Debaje : Date Of Hearing 22.04.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In; I. Concluding That The Appellant'S Request For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Without Any Reasonable Cause, Rejecting The Application & Dismissing The Appeal In Limine. Ii. Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Adjudicating The Ground Challenging Levy Of Penalty Of Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Miss Kimaya Kudva

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

electronically to attend on 20.04.2022, however the assessee again remained absent and therefore by an order dated 12.09.2022 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 11,70,963/-. 4. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Karthick Natarajan, Anna Nagar, Madurai vs. DCIT, Int Taxn Circle, Income Tax Office, Cr Building, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2106/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 271(1)(C)

Appeals) [CIT(A)] Chennai-16 dated 21.06.2024 for Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The above appeal is against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act for AY 2017-18. The ld. counsel for the assessee filed a letter dated 07.05.2025 and submitted that the appeal