← 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)

Aadinath Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4004/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi-CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 694Section 69C

Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in invoking penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2. The assessee is a company and filed the return of income

Mukesh Khurana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 4710/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271ASection 274

u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act dated 31.03.2016 was issued requiring the assessee to show cause as to “why penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the IT Act may not be imposed upon you/why penalty u/s 271AAB may not be imposed upon you”. It is pleaded ... provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act. The Ld. A.O has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB

Rama Garg, Sehore vs. DCIT-3(1), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rama Garg, Dcit-3(1), Gadhi Chok, Bhopal Chota Bazar, Vs. Nasrullaganj, Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abcpg1140J Assessee By Shri R.K. Mangal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024

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

that merely because the claim of expenditure was not accepted or not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He has also relied upon the following decisions: (i) Balaji Vegetable Products (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Karnataka High Court

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi ... Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR [SC] 1 has held that penalty u/s 271[1][c] is neither criminal nor quasi criminal but a civil liability, albeit a strict liability. Such liability being civil in nature, mens-rea is hot essential

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi ... Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR [SC] 1 has held that penalty u/s 271[1][c] is neither criminal nor quasi criminal but a civil liability, albeit a strict liability. Such liability being civil in nature, mens-rea is hot essential

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi ... Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR [SC] 1 has held that penalty u/s 271[1][c] is neither criminal nor quasi criminal but a civil liability, albeit a strict liability. Such liability being civil in nature, mens-rea is hot essential

Ajay Kumar Nirwan, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 121/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

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

learned CIT(A) has also not passed a speaking order explaining how this case is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. He merely made reference to the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. (D) At the time of hearing before ... view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the matter regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with

Ram Prasad Sooda, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 13/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.13/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Ram Prasad Sooda Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.39-7-39/1, Sector-7 Ward-2(1) Murali Nagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Amups8258A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.Kalyana Sundar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

further explanation / submission The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee has neither furnished inaccurate particulars nor concealed income to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his claim with material

Uttamchand Hastimal Jain, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1and 2, Tps, Vijayapur

ITA 567/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavuttamchand Hastimal Jain The Income Tax Officer Prop. Of Sumatinath Traders Ward - 1 & 2 (Tps) Kirana Bazar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Vijayapura 586101 Near All India Raido Pan – Addpj2783P Athani Road, Vijayapura 586104 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061137028(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 19.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-05. 2. Facts Leading To The Filing Of Present Appeal Are, The Assessee Is An Individual Running A Kirana Shop In Vijayapura, Karnataka. For The Impugned Assessment Year He Has Filed His Return Of Income(Roi) Declaring An Income Of Rs 4,72,780/- On 31.10.2014. Thereafter, An Information, Revealing That Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs. 3,10,13,708/- In Its Bank Account With Shri Gurubasava Urban Credit Souharda Co-Op. Ltd, Surfaced With Department. Accordingly The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 2 Uttamchand Hastimal Jain 148 Of The Vide Notice Dated 31.03.2021. In Response To The 148 Notice The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Declaring An Income Of Rs 21,68,535/-. While Concluding The Assessment The Ao Accepted The Revised Computation Without Any Demur. However, The Ao Simultaneously, Initiated Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Alleging That Assessee Has Concealed His Income. Afterwards, The Ao Vide Its Order Dated 26.09.2022, Levied Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act alleging that assessee has concealed his income. Afterwards, the AO vide its order dated 26.09.2022, levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the Ld CIT(A) and contended that

Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan:Aaacu5211A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 04.01.2024 & 05.01.2024 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’). 2. Has Been Preferred Assailing The Confirmation Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, Ita No.73/Kol/2024 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Is Consequential To The Quantum Additions Contested By The Assessee In Appeal No.72/Ko/2024. We First Take Quantum Appeal In Ita No.72/Kol/2024. I.T.A. No.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd

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

73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd ITA No.73/Kol/2024 – The present is an appeal against the 5. levy/confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to quantum additions as assailed in ITA No.72/Kol/2024. Since, we have set aside the order

Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 72/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan:Aaacu5211A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 04.01.2024 & 05.01.2024 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’). 2. Has Been Preferred Assailing The Confirmation Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, Ita No.73/Kol/2024 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Is Consequential To The Quantum Additions Contested By The Assessee In Appeal No.72/Ko/2024. We First Take Quantum Appeal In Ita No.72/Kol/2024. I.T.A. No.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd

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

73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd ITA No.73/Kol/2024 – The present is an appeal against the 5. levy/confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to quantum additions as assailed in ITA No.72/Kol/2024. Since, we have set aside the order

Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 464/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.464/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Anjappar Chettinad A/C Dcit Restaurant Central Circle-1(3) बनाम/ #7/2, J.P.Towers, Chennai Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifa-0590-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkata Raman (Cas)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkata RamanFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 153A on 05-03- 2022. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.1.92 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The Ld. AR has submitted that returned income

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

unexplained share capital confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and in ITA No. 160/Kol/2024 is against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made 2 I.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act which ... challenge before us in ITA No. 161/Kol/2023. Since the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

unexplained share capital confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and in ITA No. 160/Kol/2024 is against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made 2 I.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act which ... challenge before us in ITA No. 161/Kol/2023. Since the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 541/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

share of Technico Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2015-16 India Pvt. Ltd. has no basis and as such the penalty u/s 271(1)(C) should not be attracted. For that, Ld. Appellate authority should have considered the fact that assuming but not admitting the fact that ... grounds of appeal. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. As regards ITA No. 541/Kol/2023 penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), since the penalty is dependent upon the assessment order and even the appeal against the penalty has not been decided on merit, therefore

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 540/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

share of Technico Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2015-16 India Pvt. Ltd. has no basis and as such the penalty u/s 271(1)(C) should not be attracted. For that, Ld. Appellate authority should have considered the fact that assuming but not admitting the fact that ... grounds of appeal. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. As regards ITA No. 541/Kol/2023 penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), since the penalty is dependent upon the assessment order and even the appeal against the penalty has not been decided on merit, therefore

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Visakhapatnam vs. Milk Producers Employees Educational Health Medical Welfare Trust, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.229/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Milk Producers & Central Circle-2 Employees Educational Visakhapatnam Health & Medical Welfare Trust, D.No.32-11-1 Krishi Building Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaatm6689B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(15)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act by levying penalty amounting to Rs.1,27,92,593/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions made by the assessee ... Employees Educational Health and Medical Welfare Trust., Visakhapatnam under bonafide belief of claiming exemption, which should not be the basis for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee also referred to Explanation 5A to section 271 of the Act. The Ld.AR, further submitted that the case

Srk Dev Build Pvt Ltd., Indore vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 471/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

u/s 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and both were added to the total income of the assessee and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated separately on both disallowances for filing inaccurate particulars of income. 3.1 The AO has found that the assessee has claimed depreciation ... assessee is against the principles of natural justice and liable to set aside. He have further submitted that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is otherwise not sustainable as it is not a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars

Ganesh Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Ax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2) (Previously Ward-3(3)(8)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 674/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Your appellant reserves the right to add, delete, modify or revise any ground of appeal.” 3. The assessee

Sonal Sunil Thakrar, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 744/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year :2012-13 Mrs. Sonal Sunil Thakkar, B-104, Mrud Kishore Bldg., Behind Gokul Shopping Center, Datta Pada Road, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Ahhpt-4628-D ---- Appellant Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Ito 42(1)(5), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 --- Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tejas Shah Revenue By : Shri Surendra Meena Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Tejas ShahFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

addition. Hence, we are of the view that there is no concealment of particulars of income which would lead the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied