← 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)

Devender Mavi, Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1901/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

income of the assessee at INR 22,50,000/-. Thereafter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO imposed a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to INR 6,57,140/- upon the assessee. 15. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT

Devender Mavi, Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1900/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

income of the assessee at INR 22,50,000/-. Thereafter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO imposed a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to INR 6,57,140/- upon the assessee. 15. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. U K Paints India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 904/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2007-08
Section 271(1)(c)

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable, if correct limb has not been marked in the notice, even though it is not a statutory notice.” 3. “Whether on the facts ... allowed for statistical purposes and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Since, the quantum additions were deleted, the concealment of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would have no legs to stand. Hence, the penalty for both the years are hereby direct to be deleted

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. U K Paints India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 835/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 271(1)(c)

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable, if correct limb has not been marked in the notice, even though it is not a statutory notice.” 3. “Whether on the facts ... allowed for statistical purposes and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Since, the quantum additions were deleted, the concealment of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would have no legs to stand. Hence, the penalty for both the years are hereby direct to be deleted

Tsf Enterprises, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 348/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotetsf Enterprise, Vs. Dcit, Circle – 1 Golnal, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Inside Jalori Gate, Jodhpur-342001, Rajasthan. Rpan/Gir No. : Aadft4491R Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Phophalia, Ca & Shri Kapil Taparia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A))-1, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Phophalia, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

That on facts, and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeal) Jodhpur have wrongly & erroneously confirmed the initiation of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 3Assessee firm crave, leave to add, amend, alter modify or substitute any of the grounds of appeal

M/S. the Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

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

ITA 93/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S.The Central Vs. The Acit, Circle Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara. Mahendra Gargieya & Rajasthan. Associates, Adv , No537-538,5Thfloor, Mahimatrinity, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302019, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat8126B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Bhilwara. 1.The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 18.05.2017 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

quashed. 2. The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act with reference to the deduction claimed on account of Provision of Income Tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. The penalty so imposed

ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara vs. M/S. Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/JODH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)Section 50CSection 68

case of M/s Laxmi Engineers, Jodhpur vs. Department of Income-tax (ITA No. 460/Jodh/2015, A.Y. 2010-11) has contended that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied on the disallowance made u/s 40A(3). I have gone through the order of the ITAT Jodhpur relied upon ... case of ACIT, 14(1), Mumbai vs. M/s Sunland Metal Recycling (ITA No. 6454/Mum/2011, A.Y. 2008-09) has contended that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied in respect of the addition made by invoking the Provisions of Section 50C. I have gone through the order

Vatika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1763/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 1763/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 Vatika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, बनाम 621A, Devika Towers, Central Circle : 8, Vs. 6 – Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 019. Pan No. Aabci2522B अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the order of learned DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi, imposing a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act of Rs.15,31,470/-. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the proceeding u/s 271 ... issued without specifying the charge for which notice was issued the penalty proceedings initiated were bad in law and consequently levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- i) Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT 125 taxmann.com

Tirupati Balaji Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4090/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumartirupati Balaji Textiles Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Opp Babar Pur Mandi, G. T. Ward-1, Road, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact5716B Assessee By : Shri Satyam Aneja, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/06//2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Satyam Aneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

there was no doubt that the income to the extent of claim of loss has been concealed by the assessee therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was rightly imposed on the assessee. 6. On careful consideration of the above submissions, first of all, we note that ... account of loss of stock. The ld CIT(A) deleted the penalty relates to the GP estimation by observing that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified where estimated addition was made. Now the sole issue for our adjudication is penalty imposed

Late Smt Shanti Devi (Through Chander Mohan Merwah As Approved Representative), Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-7, New Delhi

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

ITA 509/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

could hardly be believed to be treated as alert or clever or cunning to be a willful defaulter with levying a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in this case as there was no deliberate concealment of income on part of the deceased and The Income from foreign deposits escaped from ... Rs.67,753/-, Rs.68,740/-, Rs.70,107/-, Rs.1,29,767/-, for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10. 5. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition made on account of interest income. During the hearing, the ld. AR raised a jurisdictional issue of the notice being

Late Smt Shanti Devi (Through Chander Mohan Merwah As Approved Representative), Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-7, New Delhi

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

ITA 508/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

could hardly be believed to be treated as alert or clever or cunning to be a willful defaulter with levying a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in this case as there was no deliberate concealment of income on part of the deceased and The Income from foreign deposits escaped from ... Rs.67,753/-, Rs.68,740/-, Rs.70,107/-, Rs.1,29,767/-, for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10. 5. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition made on account of interest income. During the hearing, the ld. AR raised a jurisdictional issue of the notice being

Late Smt Shanti Devi (Through Chander Mohan Merwah As Approved Representative), Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-7, New Delhi

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

ITA 507/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

could hardly be believed to be treated as alert or clever or cunning to be a willful defaulter with levying a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in this case as there was no deliberate concealment of income on part of the deceased and The Income from foreign deposits escaped from ... Rs.67,753/-, Rs.68,740/-, Rs.70,107/-, Rs.1,29,767/-, for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10. 5. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition made on account of interest income. During the hearing, the ld. AR raised a jurisdictional issue of the notice being

Late Smt Shanti Devi (Through Chander Mohan Merwah As Approved Representative), Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-7, New Delhi

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

ITA 506/DEL/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

could hardly be believed to be treated as alert or clever or cunning to be a willful defaulter with levying a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in this case as there was no deliberate concealment of income on part of the deceased and The Income from foreign deposits escaped from ... Rs.67,753/-, Rs.68,740/-, Rs.70,107/-, Rs.1,29,767/-, for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10. 5. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition made on account of interest income. During the hearing, the ld. AR raised a jurisdictional issue of the notice being

Khomram Chandrawanshi (HUF), Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 165/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 165/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Khomram Chandrawanshi (Huf) House No.18, Ring Road Chowk, Krishnasakha Society, Rohinipuram, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan : Aakhk2082E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

therefore, the assessee had remained divested of an opportunity to put forth in its defense a clear explanation that no such penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was called for in its case. The ld. AR in support of its aforesaid contention had relied on a host of judicial pronouncements ... vide its 5 Khomram Chandrawanshi (HUF) Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur reply dated 15.06.2017 come forth with an explanation that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was called for in its hands, therefore, it was beyond comprehension that as to on what basis it could thereafter claim

Ujjawala Power Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 106/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel Of The Assessee Submitted That The Quantum Addition In This Case Has Been Already Deleted By Itat Vide

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DR
Section 271(1)(c)

this case has been already deleted by ITAT vide order dated 13.01.2023 in ITA No.6564/Del/2018 for AY 2013-14. Hence, this penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied with reference to those additions does not survive. Ld. DR of the Revenue could not rebut this proposition. Since quantum

Ratroi Maa Trading P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Wazrd-21(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1778/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly in quantum proceedings the addition, which was the basis for imposing impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, has since been deleted by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 13.06.2023 rendered

Vikesh Chaturbhuj Agrawal, Nagpur vs. I.T.O. Ward -4(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 386/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh SindhwaniFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 03.07.2023 had confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A). 4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had proceeded to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 29.10.2013 holding that the 3 assessee guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and imposed penalty of Rs.11 ... aggrieved by the penalty order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. It is contended before

Sh. Renu Arora, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 48/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 48/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

imposition of penalty. If, the section 153A itself does not exist, so the difference of tax is in question related imposition of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.We set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A). The matter is remitted back to the file

Vinod Kumar Verma (Legal Hier of Late Smt. Sangeeta Verma), Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-52(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1541/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vinod Kumar Verma Vs Ito, [Legal Heir Of Late Smt. Sangeeta Ward-52(1), Verma],C-603, Wembley Estate, Delhi. Sector-50, Gurgaon, South City 2 S.O., Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. Pan-Aezpv2343C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Apropos to grounds of appeal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal and arbitrary. The assessment was made at the back of the assessee thereby, the assessing authority made addition

Sri Chaudhary, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Abhishek Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

assessee against the order of ld. PCIT, Ghaziabad dated 05.03.2021. 2. The order of the ld. PCIT directing the AO to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 05.03.2021. The provision of section 275(1A) reads as under: “275. 15[(1)] No order imposing a penalty under