← 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

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

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Prasanna Dugar v. CIT

70 Taxmann.com 175 · 2016 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied even if the assessee voluntarily discloses income after detection by the department or subsequent to a search, especially when the explanation provided is not bona fide or cannot be substantiated.

Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

135 Taxmann.com 244 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it shows non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer regarding the specific grounds for levying the penalty.

CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills

256 ITR 447 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions to income are made on the basis of estimation, rather than on concrete evidence of concealment. Deletion of such a penalty is upheld.

ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF

348 ITR 561 · 2012 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Section 271AAA penalty deletion can be based on the Apex Court's decision in ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF (2012) 348 ITR 561, particularly when there was no specific question put to the assessee about the manner of earning undisclosed income.

CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd.

41 Taxmann.com 280 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the income addition is made on an estimated basis without clinching material suggesting concealment or inaccurate particulars.

New Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

49 Taxmann.com 573 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The charge of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income may overlap. A taxpayer's conduct can be considered bonafide even if their submissions were rejected in the quantum appeal.

Judgments citing penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. Shri Madan Lal, Shahkot

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 28/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Trib.). The relevant paragraph is duly extracted as below: “(B.1) After hearing both sides, we are of the view that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T Act levied by AO has no legs to stand at present, when I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Years ... itself and is liable to be cancelled. In such a situation, there is no basis at all at present for sustaining the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, and therefore, in such a case, such penalty cannot survive presently. In view of the foregoing, the penalty levied U/s

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. Shri Madan Lal, Shahkot

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 27/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Trib.). The relevant paragraph is duly extracted as below: “(B.1) After hearing both sides, we are of the view that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T Act levied by AO has no legs to stand at present, when I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Years ... itself and is liable to be cancelled. In such a situation, there is no basis at all at present for sustaining the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, and therefore, in such a case, such penalty cannot survive presently. In view of the foregoing, the penalty levied U/s

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. Shri Madan Lal, Shahkot

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 26/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Trib.). The relevant paragraph is duly extracted as below: “(B.1) After hearing both sides, we are of the view that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T Act levied by AO has no legs to stand at present, when I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Years ... itself and is liable to be cancelled. In such a situation, there is no basis at all at present for sustaining the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, and therefore, in such a case, such penalty cannot survive presently. In view of the foregoing, the penalty levied U/s

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. Shri Madan Lal, Shahkot

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 25/ASR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Trib.). The relevant paragraph is duly extracted as below: “(B.1) After hearing both sides, we are of the view that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T Act levied by AO has no legs to stand at present, when I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Years ... itself and is liable to be cancelled. In such a situation, there is no basis at all at present for sustaining the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, and therefore, in such a case, such penalty cannot survive presently. In view of the foregoing, the penalty levied U/s

Income Tax Officer ( TDS) -1, Jalandhar vs. Shri Madan Lal, Shahkot

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 24/ASR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Trib.). The relevant paragraph is duly extracted as below: “(B.1) After hearing both sides, we are of the view that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T Act levied by AO has no legs to stand at present, when I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Years ... itself and is liable to be cancelled. In such a situation, there is no basis at all at present for sustaining the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, and therefore, in such a case, such penalty cannot survive presently. In view of the foregoing, the penalty levied U/s

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. Shri Madan Lal, Shahkot

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 23/ASR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Trib.). The relevant paragraph is duly extracted as below: “(B.1) After hearing both sides, we are of the view that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T Act levied by AO has no legs to stand at present, when I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Years ... itself and is liable to be cancelled. In such a situation, there is no basis at all at present for sustaining the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, and therefore, in such a case, such penalty cannot survive presently. In view of the foregoing, the penalty levied U/s

ITO Ward - 16(4), New Delhi vs. Mat Brakes India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kataria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR

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

already been passed by the ld. AO on 27.04.2018. While this is so, the ld. AO was not justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.2,23,31,862/-. In respect of the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2 ... levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the sum of Rs.72,45,571/-. Once the transfer pricing adjustment gets reduced to Rs.1,38,07,041/-, the corresponding penalty would work out to Rs.44,79,693/- which would eventually be less than the monetary limit prescribed

Vijaybhan Singh Rajput, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 3/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vijaybhan Singh Rajput, I.T.O., Plot No. 131/3, Near Shrisati Tex Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Prints, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abxpr 3970 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld. AO has erred in levying penalty and ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts

Omvir Mehta, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1478/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Omvir Mehta, Vs Ito, B-133, Mehta Niwas, Opp. Sec-4, Ward-3(2), Surya Vihar, Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana-122001. Pan-Amdpm0018K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri I.P.Bansal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

That under the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. AO has erred in law as much as in fact in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for both of the abovementioned additions. 9. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred

Agroha Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Dehli

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

ITA 1975/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 271(1)(c)

against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, dated 22.07.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12, in which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been sustained. 2. At the outset before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the quantum addition in this case ... been already deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.05.2023 in ITA No.8305/Del/2019 for AY 2011-12. Hence, this penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied with reference to those additions does not survive. 3. Per Contra, the ld. Departmental Representative could not rebut this proposition. 4. Accordingly, since quantum addition

Zarina Zikar Virani, Mumbai vs. ITO-20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

have been spelled out without striking down the in-applicable faults on which assessee has been put on notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that assessee was in the dark as to what fault it has committed for which the AO proposed

Sanchit Vinod Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1287/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1287/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sanchit Vinod Jain बिधम/ National Faceless 601, Shrimad Darshan, Shri Assessment Centre, Delhi. Vs. Rajchandra Mandir Marg, Ghatkopar, Mumbai- 400077. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ajlpj4491L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Akshay Jain/Mahaveer Jain Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.02.2023 For Ay. 2014-15 Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Of Rs.11,088/-. 2. Brief Facts Regarding Penalty Levied Is That The Assesse Had Filed The Return Of Income Of Rs.11,64,790/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act At An Income Of Rs.12,00,671/- After Making An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.35,884/-. The Addition Of Rs.35,884/- Was Because During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Observed By Ao That Assessee Had Invested In Alleged Penny Stock Scrip Of M/S Sun Asian; & Has Derived Income By Way Of Sale Of The Such Scrip Of M/S Sun Asian Of 2800 Shares For A Total Consideration Of Rs.13,60,884/-.On Being Asked, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Jain/Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 21.02.2023 for AY. 2014-15 confirming the action of the AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) of Rs.11,088/-. 2. Brief facts regarding penalty levied is that the assesse had filed

Viney Corporation Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1409/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Viney Corporation Ltd., Vs Acit, E-872, 1St Floor, Saraswati Vihar, Circle-26(2), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacv0446L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K.Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Ms. Swati Joshi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(1)(iia)

raised by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed. 6. Ground No.5 raised by the assessee is against the initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is premature hence, dismissed. Ground No.6 raised by the assessee is general in nature, needs no 7. separate adjudication hence

Surya Kirti Chand Thapar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1762/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediasurya Kirti Chand Thapar Vs. Ito 299/8, State Bank Ward-26(2) Colony, Kurukshetra, New Delhi Haryana -136 118 Pan No. Abspt 4614 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2023

Section 271(1)(c)

expediency to remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall determine correctness of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act afresh after taking into account the outcome of the quantum proceedings either before him or before the ITAT

Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vegesna, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vs. National E-Assesment Centre, Vegesna Delhi 10-50-2, Lazarus Bangalow (Dcit/Acit Waltair Main Road Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam) [Pan : Aagts9608E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043814974(1) Dated 12.07.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 14.02.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

Thereafter, the AO issued showcause notice u/s 271(1)(c) dated 28.12.2018 to the assessee asking him to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied. In response, the assessee submitted his reply on 30.09.2021, which was not accepted by the AO. Subsequently, another showcause ... case, the AO concluded that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, leading to concealment of income and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.6,18,000/- @100% of the tax sought on the amount 3 I.T.A. No.165/Viz/2022, A.Y.2011-12 Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vegesna, Visakhapatnam confirmed

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1255/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/For Respondent: Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath

Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

Ground no. 36: 17. This ground is also not pressed therefore, the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 37: Pertaining to initiate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act: 18. This ground of appeal is consequential in nature therefore, the same stand dismissed. 19. In the result, the appeal

The Income-Tax Officer -41(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mr Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the penalty knowing the fact that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed and levied on the addition of bogus purchase where information was received from external sources in nature ... quantum appeal of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the 20% of the addition of Bogus purchase on which this penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed and levied and there were no estimation from the part of the AO to determine purchase as Bogus

Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas (HUF), Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (2) (4), Rajkot

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

ITA 59/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

For Appellant: Shri R.D Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L Solanki, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)

statement of income. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not concealed the particulars of income and therefore no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, can be imposed. 5.1 The Ld. AR also contended that the AO in the Assessment Order has initiated penalty proceedings ... penalty order. Thus, as per the Ld. AR the AO himself is not sure Asstt. Year 2014-15 3 under which charge penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, should be imposed. Thus, in such facts and circumstances the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, cannot

Natasha Khanna, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2157/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri M. K. Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

file of the ld. CIT(A). 7. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after deciding the appeal relating to quantum addition made in the assessment proceedings. 8. Needless to mention

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 209/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &

Section 132(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

through the relevant assessment orders, penalty orders and submission of the appellant and the various case laws. 6.1 The AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) the I.T. Act 1961 in the case of appellant on the following reasons 1. The assessee declared additional income in the return ... income by the assessee or filing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee till the passing of assessment order. Before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act it is mandatory that the assessee is made aware of the specific charge against him for which the assessee