← 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)

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1, Mumbai vs. M/S. Asha Mangal Portfolio P. Ltd., West Bengal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5012/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5012/Mum/2006 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03) Dcit, Central Circle-1 M/S. Asha Mangal बिधम/ 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Bldg, Portfolio P. Ltd. Vs. Annexe, Mk Road, 103/24/1, Foreshore Road, Mumbai-400020. Shibpur, Howrah-711102. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabca3340B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Central-1, Mumbai Dated 25.07.2006 For Ay. 2002-03 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Was Pleased To Delete The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

No.4572/Mum/2006 (for AY. 2003-04)]. 2 A.Y. 2002-03 M/s Asha Mangal 4. The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 10.05.2006 which was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) by passing the impugned order dated 25.07.2006. Even though, none appeared for the assessee, the Tribunal vide

Radhe Developers (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Radhe Developers (India) Ltd. Acit, Cir.3(1)(2) 1St Floor, Chunibhai Chamber Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. City Gold Cinema Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacr 9177 L

For Respondent: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

both in the quantum proceedings, wherein additions were made to the income of the assessee, and in the penalty proceedings, wherein penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with respect 3 to the additions so made and confirmed in the quantum ... addition to the income on which penalty was levied , nor the basis for finding it a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9 Therefore, we hold, the penalty is not sustainable. 16. Even otherwise, despite the AO and the CIT(A) making

Kishan Kumar Agarwal, Secunderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 573/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kishan Kumar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Agarwal Central Circle 2(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa3923C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit(A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.17,05,680/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

return has been accepted by the Assessing Officer, then merely by virtue of the Act that such return showed a higher income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot automatically be imposed: i) CIT v. Suraj Bhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 ii) Bhadra Advancing (P) Ltd v. ACIT (2008) 175 Taxmann ... Bansal (2010) 329 ITR 330 iv) S.M.J Housing vs. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 698/38 Taxmann.com 203 8.1 He accordingly submitted that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is leviable. Page 6 of 14 ITA 573 of 2023 Kishan Kumar Agarwal 9. The learned Counsel

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 999/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

different orders of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16, wherein NFAC has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in all these appeals with regard ... levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax sought to be evaded on the amount of income said to be concealed. 2.1 The assessee has also raised grounds in ground No.7 that notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated

Sri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 998/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

different orders of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16, wherein NFAC has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in all these appeals with regard ... levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax sought to be evaded on the amount of income said to be concealed. 2.1 The assessee has also raised grounds in ground No.7 that notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1144/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

different orders of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16, wherein NFAC has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in all these appeals with regard ... levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax sought to be evaded on the amount of income said to be concealed. 2.1 The assessee has also raised grounds in ground No.7 that notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1002/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

different orders of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16, wherein NFAC has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act\u201d). 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in all these appeals with regard ... levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax sought to be evaded on the amount of income said to be concealed. 2.1 The assessee has also raised grounds in ground No.7 that notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1001/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

different orders of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16, wherein NFAC has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in all these appeals with regard ... levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax sought to be evaded on the amount of income said to be concealed. 2.1 The assessee has also raised grounds in ground No.7 that notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1000/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

different orders of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16, wherein NFAC has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in all these appeals with regard ... levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax sought to be evaded on the amount of income said to be concealed. 2.1 The assessee has also raised grounds in ground No.7 that notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Dcit, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

added back to the total income of the company. For claiming the incorrect deduction of bad-debts which is prima-facie incorrect, Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for this disallowance. [Addition: Rs. 57,52,59,040]” 5.2 The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2269/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

added back to the total income of the company. For claiming the incorrect deduction of bad-debts which is prima-facie incorrect, Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for this disallowance. [Addition: Rs. 57,52,59,040]” 5.2 The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Briggs Trading Co, P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2136/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

added back to the total income of the company. For claiming the incorrect deduction of bad-debts which is prima-facie incorrect, Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for this disallowance. [Addition: Rs. 57,52,59,040]” 5.2 The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance

Polixel Security Systems Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1189/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 68

same. 6. That in view of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. Page 2 of 6 7. That the additions/disallowances made

Padam J Chalani, Chennai vs. ACIT, Centralcircle-3(4), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 602/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.602/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Padam J. Challani, Acit बनाम/ Vs. No.23/1, Habibullah Road, T.Nagar, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 017. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aekpc-1816-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)- Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Pronouncement : 16-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of certain penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.4.54 Lacs for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed ... support of all the issues raised by the Learned CIT(A) in the order. 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred by levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the alleged LTCG on enhanced amounts of articles without disposing off the sources furnished and documentary evidence thereof submitted by the Appellant

Swapan Chandra Mandal, Purulia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(3), Purulia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 131/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Swapan Chandra Mandal,.......................Appellant Village & P.O. Chelyama, District- Purulia-723145 [Pan: Akepm1916H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(3), Purulia, I.T. Office Building, South Lake Road, Purulia-723101 Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 11, 2024 O R D E R

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

above debit amount (expenses) is treated as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the IT Act 1961 and added back to the total income. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated on this issue for concealment of income 3. On perusal of bank account details of OBI bearing account

M/S Cavalcade Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1612/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal of the assessee relates to The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee relates to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated by the Assessing Officer the Act initiated by the Assessing Officer M/s Cavalcade Properties

Basavaraj Laxmanagouda Biradar, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vijayapura

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 873/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

vitiates the impugned Order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6.1 Facts of the issue are that in this case penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been initiated vide show cause notice dated 28.12.2018 which reads as follows: Basavaraj Laxmanagouda Biradar, Vijayapura Page ... penalty proceedings in the assessment order dated 29.12.2018 by observing that “since the assessee ha concealed the income and filed inaccurate particulars, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being initiated separately”. Later the ld. AO while levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide

Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi

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

ITA 1062/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. Moreover, the provisions of section 271AAB (2) of the Act very clearly state that no penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act could be levied on the assessee in respect of undisclosed income offered by the assessee pursuant to search conducted ... section 271(1) (c) and section 271AAB of the Act are mutually exclusive. Accordingly, the format for issuing show cause notice for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be used for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. Further, we find that the provisions of section

Aatmaram Baraskar, Bhopal vs. AO Ward 5(3), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradaatmaram Baraskar Ito- Ward 5(3) 15, Vrandavan Nagar, Bhopal Ayodhya Bypass, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agnpb 7088C Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

peak credit/deposit in the bank account of the assesse instead of the entire deposit was added by the AO and therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable on such addition based on peak credit. In support of his contention he has relied upon the order ... account of undisclosed Rs.38,300/- source of income u/s 68 Total Rs.17,74,500/- 7.1 The Ld. AO has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) against the said addition of Rs.17,74,500/- while passing the order u/s 271(1)(c) on 28.02.2017. We further note that

Yash Bhupeshbhai Tamakuwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2)(5), Now Income Tax Officer - 1(2)(6), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 580/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.580/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yash Bhupeshbhai Tamakuwala, Vs. The Ito, 1/208, Kharadi Sheri, Nanpura, Ward- 1(2)(6), Surat – 395001. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajypt3602P (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the ld. AO of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.68,319/- in respect of long term capital gain suo moto offered for taxation during ... erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the ld. AO of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of ITA.580/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 Yash B. Tamakuwala invalid and improper show cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271