← All Phrases

“levy of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 2715,057 judgments

The decision most relied on for levy of penalty is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on levy of penalty

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

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.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya
216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court
511
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

CIT v. Manu Engg
122 ITR 306 · 1980 · High Court
505
citing judgments

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa
83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court
502
citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

Judgments citing levy of penalty

Tncd LLP., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2602/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, Ito, 126, Kg House, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

Similarly in the appeal arising from the penalty order dated 15.01.2022, the Ld.CIT(A) vide appellate order also dated 09.07.2025 had confirmed the levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act by following as follows: “Ground 5: The assertion that there was no misreporting is contradicted by facts. The assessee claimed ... estimating 8% on the WIP was arbitrary and without any basis, calling for interference. 23. With regard to the levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act, the Ld.AR argued that said penalty was levied in consequent to making a deeming addition for the assessment year under consideration by estimating

R J Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 42(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7715/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

said to be leviable on such guess work or estimation. The Court accordingly answered the question in favour of the assessee, rejecting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 21. The aforesaid discussion would make us conclude, that the Assessing Officer could not have come to a conclusion ... present case attracting proceedings for levy of penalty, when the Assessing Officer had already taken a position on materials which were available before him in the course of assessment proceedings, in computing the amount of tax payable by the assessee, by making appropriate additions on the basis of estimates derived

R J Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 42(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7714/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

said to be leviable on such guess work or estimation. The Court accordingly answered the question in favour of the assessee, rejecting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 21. The aforesaid discussion would make us conclude, that the Assessing Officer could not have come to a conclusion ... present case attracting proceedings for levy of penalty, when the Assessing Officer had already taken a position on materials which were available before him in the course of assessment proceedings, in computing the amount of tax payable by the assessee, by making appropriate additions on the basis of estimates derived

Vikas Agarwal, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6486/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 272A(2)(c)

Noida, on 29.01.2019. During the pendency of the said appeal the Ld. Add. DIT (Inv.), Meerut, vide order dated 26.03.2019, levied a penalty of Rs.39,700/-, upon the appellant u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act, for non- compliance of notice issued u/s 133(6) to the appellant ... Thereafter, upon the launch of VSV Scheme, 2020, the appellant vide form 1 dated 25.06.2020, opted to settle his appeal against the levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act, under the same. The form 1 filed by the appellant attained finality upon issuance of form

M/S. M M Brothers, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 477/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

discussion would make us conclude, that the Assessing Officer could not have come to a conclusion of the present case attracting proceedings for levy of penalty, when the Assessing Officer had already taken a position on materials which were available before him in the course of assessment proceedings, in computing

Sagar Developers, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 3, Pune

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

ITA 2657/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2657/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sagar Developers, Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Pune. S. No.27/22, Puneet Yash Arcade Dhanukar Colony, Kothrud, Pune- 411038. Pan : Aasfs3658Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. G. Sharma Revenue By : Shri M. M. Chate Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.09.2025 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By Ld. Cit(A), Delhi-31 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law- 1. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Acit, Circle-3, Pune To The Extent Of Levy Of Penalty U/S 272(1)(C) Amounting To Rs. 3,45,81,680/- Being Income Offered During The Course Of Survey & Shown In Itr Filed Post The Survey Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri H. G. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M. M. Chate
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 272(1)(c)

case and in law- 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of ACIT, Circle-3, Pune to the extent of levy of penalty u/s 272(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 3,45,81,680/- being income offered during the course of Survey and shown in ITR filed ... post the Survey proceedings. 2 2. The Ld. Income Tax Authorities erred in law and on facts in levying a penalty u/s 272(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 3,45,81,680/- for concealment of income without appreciating the fact that the appellant has offered the regular income in Survey

Uday Uttamrao Nevase, Pune vs. The Assessing Officer / Assessment Unit, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2606/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2606/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Uday Uttamrao Nevase, V The Assessing Officer / Saugandh Niwas, Hind Colony S Assessment Unit, Pune. Lane No.1 A, Bhekrai Nagar, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Pan: Akqpn1150Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Rohan Gupta Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 04.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 270A, Dated 17.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Ground 1 Section 270Aa Immunity Cit A Erred In Law By Confirming The Penalty Of Rs 629382 Under Section 270A Without Considering And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

paid within stipulated time of 30 Days and no appeal against the same was filed 7 Despite full cooperation, the CIT(A) levied a penalty @ 200% of the tax on the so-called "misreported income" The assessee in spite of facing many financial troubles due to bad health of parents ... aforestated judicial pronouncements and the facts and circumstances involved in the assessee's case, we hold that NFAC has rightly upheld the levy of penalty by the AO @200% for misreporting of income eas defined u/sec. 270A(9) of the Act. In view thereof, we do not find any infirmity

Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Jalpaiguri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2796/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “Ground 1: The penalty order u/s 271B is bad in law as mandatory conditions for levy of penalty were not satisfied and adequate opportunity of hearing was not provided. Ground 2: The assessee is an Agricultural Produce Market Committee whose income is exempt ... facts of the case. Ground 3: The estimated turnover adopted in the ex-parte assessment u/s 144 cannot form the valid basis for levy of penalty u/s 271B. Ground 4: The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits, violating principles of natural

M/S. Citadines Omr Aparthotel Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corp Ward 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 303/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.303/Chny/2026 & Sa No.29/Chny/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No.303/Chny/2026) िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Citadines Omr Aparthotel Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward-1(3), No.94, Somerset Greenways, Chennai. Sathyadev Avenue, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadcr 5653C

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40A(7)

270A of the Act stating that the assessee has under reported the income. After considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, the A.O levied the penalty to the tune of Rs. 21,30,143/-. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied ... filing of Form 68 is only a technical or venial breach which should not snatch away the substantive right to claim immunity from levy of penalty, which assessee got vested with on fulfilment of substantive conditions mandated in Clause (a) & (b) of sub-section (1) of section u/s.270AA

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6211/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

aforesaid findings of the Bench, wherein the quantum addition deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) has been upheld, the very foundation for the levy of penalty does not survive. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby quashed, and the impugned appellate order

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6209/MUM/2025[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

aforesaid findings of the Bench, wherein the quantum addition deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) has been upheld, the very foundation for the levy of penalty does not survive. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby quashed, and the impugned appellate order

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6195/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

aforesaid findings of the Bench, wherein the quantum addition deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) has been upheld, the very foundation for the levy of penalty does not survive. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby quashed, and the impugned appellate order

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6194/MUM/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

aforesaid findings of the Bench, wherein the quantum addition deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) has been upheld, the very foundation for the levy of penalty does not survive. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby quashed, and the impugned appellate order

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6193/MUM/2025[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

aforesaid findings of the Bench, wherein the quantum addition deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) has been upheld, the very foundation for the levy of penalty does not survive. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby quashed, and the impugned appellate order

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

ITA 6192/MUM/2025[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Assistant Controller F&A Directorate of Industries, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward Shimla

ITA 98/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) came to be dismissed without adjudication on merits, primarily on the ground that there was delay in filing of the appeal and that the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

untenable in law and does not constitute a valid defence. In the absence of any reasonable cause as contemplated under section 273B, the levy of penalty under section 271C is justified. 19. The assessee has failed to place on record any conclusive evidence to demonstrate that tax was deducted

Walia Agni Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1534/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ninad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

well as the final show cause notice issued by the Ld. AO remained un-complied with by the assessee which resulted in levy of penalty on the assessee of Rs.1,45,33,399/- being minimum penalty leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the appellate proceedings before

Naresh Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1559/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Naresh Kumar Jain, No.33, Venkaiyer Street, Kondithope, Chennai - 600 079. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai. Pan: Aaρρν 0443B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Gautam S. Mukundan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (In Short `Cit(A)') Dated 10.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

assessee is not guilty of concealing the particulars of income. :- 3 -: ITA No.1559/Chny/2025 However, the AO rejected the above explanation had proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs.1,38173/- vide order dated 29.09.2015 u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the levy of penalty in the above

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-1 Palghar, Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7677/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

Income Tax Portal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 5000/- u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as the “Act”) for non-filing of return without appreciating the fact ... assessee. 41. In such circumstances, there existed reasonable cause and, in any event, no contumacious conduct can be attributed so as to justify levy of penalty. Consequently, the penalty orders passed under sections 271F, 272A(1)(d) and 271(1)(b), along with the corresponding appellate orders passed under section

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -1 Palghar, Thane

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7676/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

Income Tax Portal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 5000/- u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as the “Act”) for non-filing of return without appreciating the fact ... assessee. 41. In such circumstances, there existed reasonable cause and, in any event, no contumacious conduct can be attributed so as to justify levy of penalty. Consequently, the penalty orders passed under sections 271F, 272A(1)(d) and 271(1)(b), along with the corresponding appellate orders passed under section