“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)

Shri Ram Babu Singh, Indore vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 328/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

submitted that in such circumstances the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) is a highly debatable issue and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied when the claim of the assessee is a bonafide claim. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme ... Babu Singh 7. We have considered the rival contentions as well as relevant materials placed on record. The A.O has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10). In the assessment order

Alma Assets Consultancy Private Limited., Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1185/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1185/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Alma Assets Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.…....................…...……………....Appellant 341-K1, Post Office: Sahabana, Chandigarh Road, Mundian Khurd Ludhiana, Punjab – 141123. [Pan: Aaica6234H] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Rakesh Kr. Das, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.09.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

No.1092/Kol/2023, whereby, the quantum addition relating to the impugned penalty stands deleted vide aforesaid order of the Tribunal. The impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, has no legs to stand and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. I.T.A. No.1185/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Alma

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 547/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

dated 23.08.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting ... Sought to be evaded : Rs. 1,08,258/- Minimum penalty 100% : Rs. 1,08,258/- Maximum penalty @ 300% : Rs. 3,24,774/- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 546/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

dated 23.08.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting ... Sought to be evaded : Rs. 1,08,258/- Minimum penalty @ 100% : Rs. 1,08,258/- Maximum penalty @ 300% : Rs. 3,24,774/- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

dated 23.08.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting ... Sought to be evaded : Rs. 1,08,258/- Minimum penalty @ 100% : Rs. 1,08,258/- Maximum penalty @ 300% : Rs. 3,24,774/- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

dated 23.08.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting ... Sought to be evaded : Rs. 1,08,258/- Minimum penalty @ 100% : Rs. 1,08,258/- Maximum penalty @ 300% : Rs. 3,24,774/- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

dated 23.08.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting ... Sought to be evaded : Rs. 1,08,258/- Minimum penalty @ 100% : Rs. 1,08,258/- Maximum penalty @ 300% : Rs. 3,24,774/- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1

Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 2(5), Kalyan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 391/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemr. Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao Vs The Ito.W. 2(5), Kalyan Rom No. 25-B, 6Th Floor, Ashar It (Individual), Plot No. 56, Flat No. 101, Hansa Park, Wagale Indl, Estate, Apartment Kansai Section, Thane-400604 Ambernath East, Thane-421501 Pan : Ammpb3272D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Hetal LaghaveFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(SRDR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 156Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 44A

case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act 1961. With reference to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) is reproduced hereunder in brief: "Where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income ... Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961. 7. Accordingly, this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act, 1961. The minimum penalty leviable in this case is Rs.6,28,0207- (Tax payable as per income assessed is Rs.643223 - Tax payable

M/S Asha Technologies, Kala Amb vs. ITO, Sirmour

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

reflected in the income tax return for the year under consideration, is subjected to income tax at the then prevailing tax rates. Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the Income Tax Act is also initiated for filing inaccurate particular of income and for concealing income. 28. That

M/S Asha Technologies, Sirmour vs. Addl. CIT, Solan

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

Royal Swan Charitable Minority Trust, Nanded vs. ITO (Exemption), Nanded

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1130/PUN/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 133ASection 142A(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

assessment is liable to be set aside. 7. Initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) The Ld. ITO erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 8. The appellant craves, leave to add, alter all, or any of the grounds of appeal on or before hearing.” 4. Vide application dated

Royal Swan Charitable Minority Trust, Nanded vs. ITO (Exemption), Nanded

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1129/PUN/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 133ASection 142A(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Royal Swan Charitable Minority Trust, Nanded vs. ITO (Exemption), Nanded

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1128/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 133ASection 142A(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Lakhani Arman Shoes Private Limited, Faridabad

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2926/DEL/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

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

order. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the penalty order the AO while imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has, inter alia, observed as under: “… it is concluded and held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income & concealment

Dayal Agro Products Ltd, Akola vs. JCIT, Akola Range, Akola

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 201/NAG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Benjwal, CIT DR

Section 250

additional tax demand. Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate, as usual, argued vehemently that since the A.O has invoked initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, there is always a possibility of contingent loss and damage for which the appellant is aggrieved. We find merit

Swan Petrchemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/IND/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(5)

after recording the satisfaction in the assessment order as well as by issuing show cause notice dated 28.12.2016 and thereby levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.39,18,000/- being 100% of tax ought to be evaded vide order dated 30.06.2017. Aggrieved by the penalty ... proceedings against a specific charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which in our view is a correct charge for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly there is no defect either in recording of satisfaction or in issuing the show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s

Kent Engineering India Private Limted, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 4750/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Kent Engineering India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Commissioner Of Income Shastri Marg, Vikharoli, Tax (Appeal), 1(2)(1), Gagorre Nagar, S.O. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Embassy 247, Tower C Mumbai-400 020 Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr1966M Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dhiraj Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

income overstating its current year's loss by Rs.2,59,23,978/- and as such, it is a fit case for imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, I hereby impose a minimum penalty of Rs.88,11,560/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought ... evaded by reason of concealment of particulars /furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is worked out at Rs. 88,11,560/- being 100% and Rs.2,64,34,680/- being 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. The penalty order u/s. 271(1

Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Prop. Gurcharan Jewellers vs. ITO Ward 45(5), Civic Centre

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

ITA 1625/DEL/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaashok Kumar Chauhan, Vs. Ito, Ward 45 (5), Prop. Gurcharan Jewellers, New Delhi. 17/2, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi – 110 018. (Pan : Aaapc1500F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Order : 16.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 15.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1.1 That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Additions On Account Of Gift Of Rs.15,00,000/- & Undisclosed Stock Of Rs.12,33,382/- Without Appreciating The Correct Factual Position & Considering The Submissions Filed By The Appellant. 1.2 That Both These Issues Were Not Part Of The Assessment Order Dated 06/03/2013Passed U/S 254/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Resulted In Impugned Penalty Proceedings

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 254Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

read as under :- “1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of additions on account of gift of Rs.15,00,000/- and undisclosed stock of Rs.12

Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 167/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The penalty in the present case was levied on concealment/furnishing of inaccurate ... order of the Hon'ble ITAT which upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) initiated and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and passed order imposing penalty of Rs.22,78,213/- which is 100% of the tax escaped and confirmed by the CIT(A) and confirmed

Ambereen Islam, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40, Kolkata

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

ITA 262/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.262/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ambereen Islam….…………………..……………………....………....Appellant 71, Princep Street, Chandni Chawk, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan: Aakpi3448Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.11.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noted That The Assessee Had Raised A Claim Of Duty Draw Back To The Tune Of Rs.3,67,376/-, Whereas, The Assessee Had Disclosed A Sum Of Rs.69,525/- Under The Head ‘Duty Draw Back’. On Being Asked To Explain In This Respect, The Assessee Explained That The Balance Amount Of Rs.2,97,851/- Was Not Received During The Year. That The Amount Of

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has agitated against the levy/confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings noted