← 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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4367/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case ... Tribunal held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd reported

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4366/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case ... Tribunal held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd reported

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4365/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case ... Tribunal held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd reported

Image Finvest & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Image Finvest & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-11(4), Kolkata 200, Block-A, Bangur Avenue, Vs Kolkata-700055 Pan: Aaaci 5378 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Ar Respondent By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act concealment of alleged undisclosed income in the hands of assessee. The ld. AO accordingly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 100 percent of tax sought to be evaded of Rs. 1,22,856/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee ... with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, ld. AR stated that imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not correct. He further stated that revised return of income was filed by the assessee before finalization of assessment

Pijush Kanti Bhunia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), Midnapore

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 328/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.327&328/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Pijush Kanti Bhunia….……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Agrpb9773C] Vs. Ito, Ward-39(1), Midnapore……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 08, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Assessee’S Appeal Relating To Quantum Addition & Second Is Penalty Addition. 2. Ita No.327/Kol/2024 - The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Recorded Reasons To Believe Are Invalid & Improper & As Such, The Reassessment Framed Vide Order Dated19.12.2019 Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 271(1)(c)

appeals preferred by the assessee, one is pertaining to the quantum addition and the other is deleting to the levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). First, we take assessee’s appeal relating to quantum addition and second ... gains or business income as the case may be. 6. ITA No.328/Kol/2023 – In this appeal, the assessee has contested the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Since, we have deleted the quantum additions, therefore, the very basis of which the impugned penalty was levied u/s

Pijush Kanti Bhunia, Midnapur vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), Midnapore

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 327/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.327&328/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Pijush Kanti Bhunia….……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Agrpb9773C] Vs. Ito, Ward-39(1), Midnapore……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 08, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Assessee’S Appeal Relating To Quantum Addition & Second Is Penalty Addition. 2. Ita No.327/Kol/2024 - The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Recorded Reasons To Believe Are Invalid & Improper & As Such, The Reassessment Framed Vide Order Dated19.12.2019 Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 271(1)(c)

appeals preferred by the assessee, one is pertaining to the quantum addition and the other is deleting to the levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). First, we take assessee’s appeal relating to quantum addition and second ... gains or business income as the case may be. 6. ITA No.328/Kol/2023 – In this appeal, the assessee has contested the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Since, we have deleted the quantum additions, therefore, the very basis of which the impugned penalty was levied u/s

Abdul Nayab Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(1)(1), Maturmandir, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4012/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 4Section 54Section 54F

ground of appeal 1 is dismissed. 6.2 The appellant in his ground of appeal 2 has challenged the initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and also the charging of interest u/s 234. As theground regarding the initiation of penalty is beingoffered on the same. Similarly the charging of interest

Bbr (India) Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 468/BANG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessmentyear:2009-10

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

meanwhile, the ld. AO BBR (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 4 had issued a show cause notice for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for which the assessee filed a reply by enclosing the Tribunal’s order and requested to drop the penalty proceedings ... time, assessee had not filed any appeal against the quantum order dated 29.9.2021. Therefore, the ld. AO had confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act by an order dated 11.1.2022. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC on 14.2.2022 against quantum

Unicorn Infoservices Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the regular ground raised by the

ITA 4190/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vickey Chedda/Mr. Jainam GalaFor Respondent: 02/05/2024
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income of the as income of the assessee and offer it for taxation. Fence assessee and offer it for taxation. Fence penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. its penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. its explanations (3) is clearly leviable in the instant case explanations (3) is clearly leviable ... furnish anything in support of its contention appellant company could not furnish anything in support of its contention that why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should have not been levied by the Id. that why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should have not been levied

Shrenik Hiralal Shah, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 263/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri C S Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 50C

erred in fact and in law in passing the order without granting proper opportunity of being heard. Without prejudice to the above: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): 3) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 ... learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in levying a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition made on account of long-term capital gain amounting to Rs. 37,01,433/- for furnishing in accurate particulars

Mr Homi R. Cooper, Mumbai Suburban vs. Assistant Commissioner on Income Tax, Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 3929/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

liabilities. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is an appeal before us. 7. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that ... submitted that there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee which could result in the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities

Mr Homi R. Cooper, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 3928/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

liabilities. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is an appeal before us. 7. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that ... submitted that there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee which could result in the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities

Umanath Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

total income on account of share capital received during the 2 Umanath Finvest Pvt. Ltd. F.Y. 2005-06. Consequent to the addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been levied by the AO. 4. We find that the page no. 5 below para 9, the Assessing Officer has also mentioned ... that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of income/filing of inaccurate particulars of income.” We also find at page 6 of Assessment Order, the AO mentioned “Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately.” 5. We also

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gemalto Digital Security Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2191/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumardcit Vs. Gemalto Digital Security Circle – 10(1) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, A Wing New Delhi Berjaya House, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110 065 Pan No. Aabcs 5455 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv. S/Shri Sushil Kumar & Shri Pravesh Sharma, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amit Kumar Jain, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.05.2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar:

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

deleted the foreign exchange fluctuation loss. After the order passed by learned CIT(A), a fresh show-cause 3 notice for the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee on 08.03.2013. The assessee had filed a written reply. After considering the reply of the assessee ... claim 4 was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).” 6. We have heard learned DR and perused the material on record. Learned DR stated that the order passed

Pramod Kumar Singh, Bhopal vs. ITO-Ward-3(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/IND/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee. It further emerged (i) that the AO has made addition in assessment-order in absence of details by assessee; (ii) the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is linked with the outcome of assessment; and (iii) the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is also linked with compliances by assessee during

Pramod Kumar Singh, Bhopal vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/IND/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee. It further emerged (i) that the AO has made addition in assessment-order in absence of details by assessee; (ii) the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is linked with the outcome of assessment; and (iii) the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is also linked with compliances by assessee during

Pramod Kumar Singh, Bhopal vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/IND/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee. It further emerged (i) that the AO has made addition in assessment-order in absence of details by assessee; (ii) the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is linked with the outcome of assessment; and (iii) the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is also linked with compliances by assessee during

R. G. Sundar & Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1600/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

discrepancies as mentioned in the reasons to re-open were brought to light during the course of survey. As such, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act is being initiate d for the concealment of income to that effect. 7.22 In view of detailed discussion made in preceding ... paragraphs, I don't find merit in the claim of Appellant that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not attracted in its case since income returned in response to Notice u/s 148 has been accepted by the AO and Explanation 4 holds good only when there is difference between income

R. G. Sundar & Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1599/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

discrepancies as mentioned in the reasons to re-open were brought to light during the course of survey. As such, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act is being initiate d for the concealment of income to that effect. 7.22 In view of detailed discussion made in preceding ... paragraphs, I don't find merit in the claim of Appellant that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not attracted in its case since income returned in response to Notice u/s 148 has been accepted by the AO and Explanation 4 holds good only when there is difference between income

Shiv Agrevo Ltd, Kota vs. DCIT Circle-2, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 623/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Garvieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 274

made and sustained only on estimate basis. There is no positive fact finding has been recorded to support the contention of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. We find support from the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in the cases ... said addition. It is, according to us, a pure guess work and, in our view, on such guess work or estimation, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act can be said to be leviable. For imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer