← 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)

Falguni S. Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra P. Sinha

For Respondent: Shri S K Agal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed by the Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi amounting to Rs. 64,857/- without considering the submission of the appellant ... u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As such, this contention of the appellant does not save her from the rigors of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (ii) As to the payment made by the appellant to buy peace of mind, reliance is placed on decision

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Prop. M/S S.D. Construction, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3414/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Thakudesai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh – Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

Delay is condoned. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,70,448/-. I.T.A. No. 3414/Mum/2024 2 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

Mr Shekhar Dadarkar Prop. M/S S.D. Construction, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-31(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3343/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Thakudesai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh – Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,59,999/-. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 28/09/2012 declaring

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar, Prop. M/S. S.D Construction, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 31(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3340/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Thakudesai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh – Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,52,380/-. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2008

Khilan N. Patel (HUF), Surat vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat

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

ITA 429/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.429/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Khilan N. Patel (Huf), Vs. The Dcit, 6/2201, Nagarsheri, Mahidharpura, Circle – 2(3), Surat – 395003 (Gujarat) Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakhk6987L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

explain the source of cash deposited which was later invested in share transactions. Hence, Rs.41,00,000/- was added u/s 68 and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had also disclosed short-term capital gain (STCG) of Rs.32

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 936/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

115BBE shall apply as applicable in the relevant AYs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s 245H(1

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 935/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

115BBE shall apply as applicable in the relevant AYs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s 245H(1

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 934/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

115BBE shall apply as applicable in the relevant AYs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s 245H(1

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 933/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

115BBE shall apply as applicable in the relevant AYs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s 245H(1

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 932/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

115BBE shall apply as applicable in the relevant AYs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s 245H(1

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 931/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

115BBE shall apply as applicable in the relevant AYs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s 245H(1

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Palampur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

/NFAC, Delhi each dt. 26/10/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012- 13 & 2013-14 challenging the sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Since the common issues are involved in the both the above appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed ... aforesaid discussions and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decision supra, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby directed to be deleted. 15. In ITA No. 805/CHD/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, both the parties fairly submitted that

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Palampur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 804/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

/NFAC, Delhi each dt. 26/10/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012- 13 & 2013-14 challenging the sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Since the common issues are involved in the both the above appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed ... aforesaid discussions and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decision supra, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby directed to be deleted. 15. In ITA No. 805/CHD/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, both the parties fairly submitted that

Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1752/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1752/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.) ….....Appellant 12Th Floor, Unit 12B, Unimark Asian, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aancs7043M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. C. Jhawer, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rama Choudhary, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 26.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.19,81,896/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act Based On Information Received Regarding Bogus Ltcg On Sale Of Shares Of Banas Finance Ltd. It Was Alleged That The Assessee Purchased 55,000 Shares For Rs.30,11,800/- & Sold Them For Rs.10,05,950/- Booking A Loss Of Rs.20,05,850/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Concluded

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

consistency between the penalty notice and the penalty order so far `charge of penalty, is concerned and the mechanical initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) itself is bad in law. We also find that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

Muthurathinam, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1St Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Avypm 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate By Virtual. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Penalty Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Sought To Be Urged By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] By Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ In Short) In Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Has Satisfied That Penalty Proceeding Is Being Initiated Separately For “Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income” Where As Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 04.01.2022 Levied Penalty For “Concealment Of Income”, Although In The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1) (C), The Ao Has Marked The Specified Limb As “That You Have Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income”.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate by virtualFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) dated 28.09.2021 was issued, whereby, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) may not be imposed upon it. 05. On 04.01.2022, after considering the reply of the assessee, a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c ... commensurate with the original assessment order or the penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) dated 28.09.2021. In this case, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Hence, respectfully following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory

Ghanshyam K Kevadiya HUF, Surat vs. ITO-1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is

ITA 1031/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsth Sitet G./Ita Nos.1030 & 1031/Srt/2024 (Ay 2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7It is therefore prayed that above addition may please be deleted as learned Members of the Tribunal may deem

Gahnshyam K Kevadiya HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is

ITA 1030/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsth Sitet G./Ita Nos.1030 & 1031/Srt/2024 (Ay 2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7It is therefore prayed that above addition may please be deleted as learned Members of the Tribunal may deem

M/S. Rukmani Engineering Works, (Now Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Odisha vs. The Dy. CIT- Circle- Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee firm being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 81/RPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Rukmani Engineering Works (Now Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Mig-384, Svbp Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) Pan: Aaifr4667G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 251Section 40

S/shri Raj Kishore Sahu (Rs.3.50 lacs) & Shri Uday Nath Sahu (Rs.5.50 lacs) : Rs.9 lacs. The A.O while culminating the assessment initiated penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved the assessee firm assailed the quantum assessment before the CIT(Appeals) who disposed of the appeal vide his order ... there were no adverse inferences drawn by the A.O regarding the genuineness of the incurring of the said expenses, therefore, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was liable to be imposed on the amount of expenditure so disallowed. At the same time, the CIT(Appeals) observed that

Nikunjkumar Ghanshyambhai Desai, Desai Street vs. Income Tax Officer, Second Floor

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

ITA 176/SRT/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Nikunjkumar Ghanshyambhai Desai, Vs. The Ito, Panetha Desai Street Paneth, Zaghadia, Ward – 1(4), Bharuch – 393120, Gujarat Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amgpd2814B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Piyush Panchal, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2025

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

bank account was also treated as undisclosed income from other sources. Total income was determined at Rs.17,18,950/- and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated by the AO for concealment of income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed this appeal

Dipak Kumar Singh & Sons HUF, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Patna

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

ITA 647/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54F

ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject