← All Phrases

“penalty under section 271B”

PenaltySection 271BSection 271B222 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271B is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271B

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT
222 ITR 691 · 1996 · High Court
114
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied if a penalty under Section 271A has already been imposed for non-maintenance of books of account.

CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co.
322 ITR 86 · 2010 · High Court
110
citing judgments

If a penalty is levied under Section 271A for failure to maintain books of account, then a separate penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited under Section 44AB cannot also be levied.

CIT v. Bisauli Tractors
299 ITR 219 · 2008 · High Court
81
citing judgments

If an assessee has not maintained books of accounts, the question of getting those accounts audited under Section 44AB does not arise, and therefore, a penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied. Non-maintenance of books is separately punishable under Section 271A.

Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
252 ITR 471 · 2001 · High Court
57
citing judgments

A penalty under sections like 271D or 271E is not automatically imposed if the assessee proves there was a reasonable cause for the failure. The interpretation of 'reasonable cause' is that which would prevent a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence from acting negligently or in bad faith.

DIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
365 ITR 560 · 2014 · High Court
56
citing judgments

If a sum is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the recipient, the payer is not obligated to deduct tax at source, and consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made. The Bombay High Court also affirmed that penalty proceedings under section 271B may be quashed in certain circumstances.

Premier Breweries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
372 ITR 180 · 2015 · Supreme Court
52
citing judgments

Whether an assessee has shown 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B, particularly in the context of penalties under Section 271D for violations of Section 269SS, is a question of law involving a legal inference from primary facts. Penalties under Section 271D are not leviable if reasonable cause is established, even for journal entries, provided transactions are genuine and bona fide.

Bharat Construction Co. v. ITO
153 CTR 414 · 1999 · High Court
49
citing judgments

When an assessee fails to maintain books of account, resulting in a confirmed penalty under section 271A, no additional penalty under section 271B can be levied for the failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB, as there are no accounts to audit.

Judgments citing penalty under section 271B

Varunkumar Tejmal Jain, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 396/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Varunkumar Tejmal Jain, I.T.O., 1205, Tower No. 2, Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Vrajbhumi Complex, Parvat Patiya, Surat. Surat-395010. E-Mail-Gandhihimanshu92@Yahoo.In Pan No. Aghpj 1016 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 145(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

return of income as per Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee neither furnished such account, therefore, separate proceeding for penalty under Section 271B was initiated. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee while filing return of income for impugned assessment year on 26/10/2018, declared income

Ekam Wines, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (1), Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 161/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 271BSection 3Section 44A

ITRR 219(ALL) In the instant case, the Assessing Officer did not impose penalty under section 271A and instead proceeded to impose penalty under section 271B. If a person has not maintained the accounts book or any accounts, the question of its audit does not arise. In such an event ... that, there can be no possibility of any offence as contemplated by section 44AB and, therefore, in the instant case, the imposition of penalty under section 271B was erroneous. • Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. S.K. Gupta & Company [2010] 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad) Requirement of getting books of account audited

Shri Anil Omprakash Mishra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 314/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Anil Om Prakash Mishra, I.T.O., A-281, Shubham Bunglows, Sachin, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Surat-394230. Surat. Pan No. Ajnpm 7661 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

account audited under Section 44AB of the Act despite having total receipt beyond threshold limit. Thus, the Assessing Officer was justified in levying penalty under Section 271B of the Act. 3 Sh. Anil Omprakash Mishra Vs ITO Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal ... considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record carefully. There is no dispute that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under Section 271B of the Act. Admittedly, no penalty is imposed under Section 271A for not maintaining books of account. The case of assessee right from

M/S.Elavally Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 1& Tps, Guruvayoor

ITA 31/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 274Section 44ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

agitating the Order dated 06.12.2022 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), for short], confirming the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment year (AY) 2017-2018 vide order dated 23.8.2021. 2. The brief, background facts

M/S Chavakkad Service Co-Op Bank Ltd No F 9991, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 1 &Tps, Guruvayoor

ITA 30/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm

For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 271BSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

registered as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS) under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (‘Kerala Act’), directed against the confirmation of penalty under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act’ hereinafter) vide separate orders dated 24.01.2022 for assessment years

M/S Chavakkad Service Co-Op Bank Ltd No F 9991, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 1 &Tps, Guruvayoor

ITA 29/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm

For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 271BSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

registered as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS) under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (‘Kerala Act’), directed against the confirmation of penalty under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act’ hereinafter) vide separate orders dated 24.01.2022 for assessment years

Shri Tirlok Singh Through Legal Heir Gurnam Singh, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Gurdaspur

Appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the manner discussed as above

ITA 71/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 70 & 71/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tarlok Singh Through Legal Heir The Ito Gurnam Singh Dorangla Ward Gurdaspur-143521- Punjab Gurdaspur

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri V.S. Aggarwal, ITP
Section 144Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

heard or disposed off. 3. At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for late filing of audit report under section 44AB of the Act. He has further submitted that ... peruse records, impugned order and citation placed before us. 5.1 It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi has confirmed the penalty under section 271B of the Act, levied by the Assessing Officer for not filing the Audit Report without appreciating the fact that the assessee has explained

Shri Tirlok Songh Through Legal Heir Gurnam Singh, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Gurdaspur

Appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the manner discussed as above

ITA 70/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 70 & 71/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tarlok Singh Through Legal Heir The Ito Gurnam Singh Dorangla Ward Gurdaspur-143521- Punjab Gurdaspur

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri V.S. Aggarwal, ITP
Section 144Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

heard or disposed off. 3. At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for late filing of audit report under section 44AB of the Act. He has further submitted that ... peruse records, impugned order and citation placed before us. 5.1 It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi has confirmed the penalty under section 271B of the Act, levied by the Assessing Officer for not filing the Audit Report without appreciating the fact that the assessee has explained

Space Centre Employees Co-Op Society Ltd, Trivandrum vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the Appeal and Stay Petition of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 89/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 89/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Space Centre Employees बनाम/ Ito, Ward-2(1), Co-Operative Society Ltd. Trivandrum. Vs. No. T1388 Office Building, Isro Post, Veli, Thiruvananthapurm- 695201. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Sp. No. 20/Coch/2023 Arising Out Of Ita. No.89/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Space Centre Employees बनाम/ Ito, Ward-2(1), Co-Operative Society Ltd. Trivandrum. Vs. No. T1388 Office Building, Isro Post, Veli, Thiruvananthapurm- 695201. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaap1047R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santhosh P Abraham Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh P AbrahamFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 271BSection 44Section 44A

along with a further report by an Accountant in the prescribed form, within the date stipulated for the said purpose, it will attract penalty under section 271B, subject to provisions contained in section 273B, which is of showing sufficient reasons (reasonable cause). In the case at hand, the appellant ... proper compliance. Since the appellant had failed to show any 'reasonable cause', coming within the purview of section 273B, the imposition of penalty under section 271B cannot be interfered with. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant had drawn our attention to a Circular issued by the Central Board

M/S.the Paravur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO, Kollam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Stay Petition are dismissed

ITA 105/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 105/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Paravur Service Co- बनाम/ Ito, Income Tax Operative Bank Ltd, Bank Department Vs. Building, Paravur, Post, Kollam. Thiruvananthapuram- 691301. Pan No. Aakas9699E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Sp. No. 45/Coch/2023 Arising Out Of Ita. No.105/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Paravur Service Co- बनाम/ Ito, Income Tax Operative Bank Ltd, Bank Department Vs. Building, Paravur, Post, Kollam. Thiruvananthapuram- 691301. Pan No. Aakas9699E "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaap1047R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santhosh P Abraham Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Society Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.01.2023 For Ay. 2017-18. Since We Proceed With The Hearing Of Appeal On Merits, The Stay Petition Filed By Assessee Against Demand Raised Has Become In- Fructuous & So Is Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh P AbrahamFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 271BSection 274Section 44ASection 80P

along with a further report by an Accountant in the prescribed form, within the date stipulated for the said purpose, it will attract penalty under section 271B, subject to provisions contained in section 273B, which is of showing sufficient reasons (reasonable cause). In the case at hand, the appellant ... proper compliance. Since the appellant had failed to show any 'reasonable cause', coming within the purview of section 273B, the imposition of penalty under section 271B cannot be interfered with. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant had drawn our attention to a Circular issued by the Central Board

Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti Tonk, Madhav Kunj, Madhyamik Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Yag Ke Balaji, Tonk vs. DCIT(E), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271BSection 44A

Hence, the assessee was not liable to obtain any audit report within the meaning of section 44AB of the Act. Therefore, cancellation of penalty under section 271B was justified. We, therefore, are convinced with the arguments of the ld counsel for the assessee before the Ld CIT(A) and before

Shri Radheyshyam Bisani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 288/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Gd Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. Pan No. Aaspb 9157 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

house property and capital gain. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, accepted the return of income. However, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) by taking a view that the share transaction of short term capital gain ... Section 44AB of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that as the assessee has not obtained the audit report, therefore penalty under Section 271B of the Act is attracted. 3. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice before levying of penalty. The assessee filed his reply

Easow Thomas, Mumbai vs. CIT Ministry of Finance Income Tax Department NFAC, Kalyan

ITA 336/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

profession’, it could not be said that the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act were applicable and as a sequel thereto, penalty under Section 271B of the Act was not leviable. [Commissioner of Income-tax, Hisar Vs. Market Committee, Sirsa: 210 Taxman 20 (Punjab & Haryana)]. Further, in the facts

Smt. Sushila Devi, Sh 8A, Village Daulatpura, Post Katrathal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Circle, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 149/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Sushila Devi SH 8A, Village Daulapura Post Katrathal, Sikar cuke Vs. ACIT, Circle, Sikar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGVPD 6837 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of H

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

there is any breach it was technical or venial in nature. In the facts of this case, no case of penalty under section 271B was made out. 9. Respectfully following the said decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and observation of the apex court on levy

Balajee Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 238/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 246Section 250

January, 1997; (l) an order imposing a penalty under sub-section (2) of section 158BFA; (m) an order imposing penalty under section 271B or section 271BB; (n) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (o) an order made

Balajee Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 237/VIZ/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 246Section 250

January, 1997; (l) an order imposing a penalty under sub-section (2) of section 158BFA; (m) an order imposing penalty under section 271B or section 271BB; (n) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (o) an order made

Balajee Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 236/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 246Section 250

January, 1997; (l) an order imposing a penalty under sub-section (2) of section 158BFA; (m) an order imposing penalty under section 271B or section 271BB; (n) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (o) an order made

Nano Agro Science Co Op Society Ltd, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 311/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 159 & 160/Rjt/2021 & 311/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2015-16) Nano Agro Science Co.Op. The Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ Society Ltd. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot Vs. Plot No.1384, Lodhika Gidc, Metoda Dist. Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaabn0532G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 13/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 21/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2021 (For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17) & 20.10.2022 (2015-16) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘Nfac) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 04.03.2020 (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 271B

Bench was of the view that the assessee had a reasonable cause and his conduct not being fraudulent or contumacious; penalty under Section 271B of the Act, therefore, was found to be not justifiable. Surprisingly, in the order impugned, we find that the Commissioner noted that the facts ... theAct is not found to be just and proper. Such reasonable cause should have been appreciated by the authorities below while imposing penalty under Section 271B of the Act. ITA Nos. 159 & 160/Rjt/2021 & 311/Rjt/2022 (Nano Agro Science Co.op. Society Ltd.) - 5- 8. We would like to note that we have

Nano Agro Science Co Op Society Ltd, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 160/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 159 & 160/Rjt/2021 & 311/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2015-16) Nano Agro Science Co.Op. The Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ Society Ltd. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot Vs. Plot No.1384, Lodhika Gidc, Metoda Dist. Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaabn0532G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 13/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 21/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2021 (For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17) & 20.10.2022 (2015-16) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘Nfac) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 04.03.2020 (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 271B

Bench was of the view that the assessee had a reasonable cause and his conduct not being fraudulent or contumacious; penalty under Section 271B of the Act, therefore, was found to be not justifiable. Surprisingly, in the order impugned, we find that the Commissioner noted that the facts ... theAct is not found to be just and proper. Such reasonable cause should have been appreciated by the authorities below while imposing penalty under Section 271B of the Act. ITA Nos. 159 & 160/Rjt/2021 & 311/Rjt/2022 (Nano Agro Science Co.op. Society Ltd.) - 5- 8. We would like to note that we have

Nano Agro Science Co. Op. Society Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/RJT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 159 & 160/Rjt/2021 & 311/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2015-16) Nano Agro Science Co.Op. The Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ Society Ltd. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot Vs. Plot No.1384, Lodhika Gidc, Metoda Dist. Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaabn0532G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 13/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 21/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2021 (For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17) & 20.10.2022 (2015-16) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘Nfac) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 04.03.2020 (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 271B

Bench was of the view that the assessee had a reasonable cause and his conduct not being fraudulent or contumacious; penalty under Section 271B of the Act, therefore, was found to be not justifiable. Surprisingly, in the order impugned, we find that the Commissioner noted that the facts ... theAct is not found to be just and proper. Such reasonable cause should have been appreciated by the authorities below while imposing penalty under Section 271B of the Act. ITA Nos. 159 & 160/Rjt/2021 & 311/Rjt/2022 (Nano Agro Science Co.op. Society Ltd.) - 5- 8. We would like to note that we have