← 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

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 574/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Us, Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary" 3. In so far as levy of penalty on disallowance of Rs.13,890/-, it has been stated that this was with regard to deduction u/s.80-O being the 40% of the amount ... because the claim of the assessee as ‘Revenue expenditure’ had been held to be a capital expenditure then it does not lead to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order

Sumit Lalchand Pahuja, Kolhapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward1(5), Kolhapur

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

ITA 273/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sumit Lalchand Pahuja, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), House No.2719, Gandhinagar, Kolhapur. Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur- 416119. Pan : Bohpp0806D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Merit In Confirming Additions Of Rs.1,03,90,206/- When The Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Bad In Law. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Merit In Confirming Additions Of Rs.1,03,90,206/- When Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Based On Erroneous Facts & Without Proper Application Of Mind By Assessing Officer As The Assessee Did Not Held Any Account With M/S Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

account alleged society. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on merit in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 5. The appellant craves for leave to amend, modify or add to any of the above grounds of appeal

N R Constructions, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 18/Viz/2024 (धििाधरणिरध/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) N R Constructions V. Acit – Circle – 1 Kakinada 2-59-7, Shanthi Nagar Kakinada – 533003 Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Aabfn7969A] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) यरद्त्य्पयतय्यिध/ Assessee Represented By : Ms. Keerthana, Ar र्जसय्पयतय्यिध/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar सु्व्ईसम्पहो्ेय्यतयि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषण्य्त्र्ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

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

were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Page No. 2 I.T.A. No. 18/VIZ/2024 NR Constructions Assessing Officer thereby levying the penalty of Rs. 8,93,288/- vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order ... estimate basis, various judicial pronouncements have held that penalty cannot be levied when the addition is estimated. We therefore find that the levy of penalty based on the addition made by an estimate cannot be a valid ground and hence it should be deleted. It is ordered accordingly.” 8. Respectfully

Mohammad Iqbal, U.P vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gaziabad

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

ITA 253/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mohammad Iqbal, Vs Ito, Rag & Associates, Chartered Ward-1(4), Accountants, 209, Jagdamba Ghaziabad. Tower, 13, Preet Vihar Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Abzpi5476Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vipin Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S.Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69Section 69ASection 80T

Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, partly allowed for statistical purposes. In his submission, the assessee has also challenged the correctness of levy of penalty imposed u/s 270A of the Act vide order dated 28.03.2022. The initiation and levy of penalty being separate proceedings. The assessee should challenge

Srinivas Reddy Komatireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 635/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

that, the Ld. CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to submit their explanations/evidences with regards to the levy of penalty . It is further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without providing proper opportunity. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee does ... only due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee could not produce their explanations/evidences with regards to the levy of penalty. By consolidating all the grounds, he further submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is now ready to produce all such details and conduct

Srinivas Reddy Komatireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 634/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

that, the Ld. CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to submit their explanations/evidences with regards to the levy of penalty . It is further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without providing proper opportunity. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee does ... only due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee could not produce their explanations/evidences with regards to the levy of penalty. By consolidating all the grounds, he further submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is now ready to produce all such details and conduct

Srinivas Reddy Komatireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 633/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

that, the Ld. CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to submit their explanations/evidences with regards to the levy of penalty . It is further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without providing proper opportunity. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee does ... only due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee could not produce their explanations/evidences with regards to the levy of penalty. By consolidating all the grounds, he further submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is now ready to produce all such details and conduct

Ramalingam Karthikeya Narayanan, Madurai vs. DCIT, Ncc-2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1684/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1684/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramalingam Karthikeya Narayanan, Deputy Commissioner Of 2/30, Ponmeni Periyavar Street, V. Income Tax, Sakthivelammal Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle -2, Arasaradi H.O Madurai South, Madurai. Madurai – 625 016. [Pan: Adrpn-5099-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Nikitha, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024

For Appellant: Ms. A. Nikitha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

filing the Audit Report. 6. Any other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts relevant for levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act, are that the assessee is an individual and had filed her return of income for AY 2017-18 on 09.02.2018, whereas

Ahmed Bin Amer Bilwail, Hyderabad vs. Add.CIT, International Taxation, Hyderabad

ITA 525/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 269SSection 271D

assessee is in appeal before us. The solitary ground raised by the Ld. AR in this appeal is with regards to the levy of penalty u/s. 271D of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the total cash of Rs. 25,86,000/- had been received

Shavva Sudheer Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.403 & 404/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Shavva Sudheer Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Reddy Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Agkpr5747F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271ASection 69A

before the learned CIT (A). Therefore, unless the quantum appeal filed by the assessee is decided, the appeal filed by the assessee against levy of penalty cannot be decided. Therefore, she submitted that the appeal may be set aside to the file of the learned CIT (A) to decide

The Lalgudi Sivagnanam Agricultural Producers Co-Op Mkg Society Limited, Trichy vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Trichy

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1583/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1581/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1582/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1583/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Lalgudi Sivagnanam Agricultural Dcit बनाम/ Producers Co-Op Mkg Society Limited Circle-1(1) 171, Lalgudi, Trichy. Vs. Tiruchirapalli-621 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaat-0204-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate From Erode) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate from Erode) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271B

levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 271B of the Act vide separate orders all dated 16-06-2023. The facts leading to levy of penalty are quite identical in all the years. The registry has noted delay of 28 days in the appeals. Considering the period of delay ... available to Ld. AO before completion of assessment proceedings then mere venial technical breach without any mala fide intention would not call for levy of penalty u/s 271B. Similar are the other decisions as placed on record. Therefore, by following the same, we delete the impugned penalty

The Lalgudi Sivagnanam Agricultural Producers Co-Op Mkg Society Limited, Trichy vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Trichy

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1582/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1581/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1582/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1583/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Lalgudi Sivagnanam Agricultural Dcit बनाम/ Producers Co-Op Mkg Society Limited Circle-1(1) 171, Lalgudi, Trichy. Vs. Tiruchirapalli-621 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaat-0204-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate From Erode) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate from Erode) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271B

levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 271B of the Act vide separate orders all dated 16-06-2023. The facts leading to levy of penalty are quite identical in all the years. The registry has noted delay of 28 days in the appeals. Considering the period of delay ... available to Ld. AO before completion of assessment proceedings then mere venial technical breach without any mala fide intention would not call for levy of penalty u/s 271B. Similar are the other decisions as placed on record. Therefore, by following the same, we delete the impugned penalty

The Lalgudi Sivagnanam Agricultural Producers Co-Op Mkg Society Limited, Trichy vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Trichy

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1581/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1581/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1582/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1583/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Lalgudi Sivagnanam Agricultural Dcit बनाम/ Producers Co-Op Mkg Society Limited Circle-1(1) 171, Lalgudi, Trichy. Vs. Tiruchirapalli-621 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaat-0204-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate From Erode) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate from Erode) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271B

levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 271B of the Act vide separate orders all dated 16-06-2023. The facts leading to levy of penalty are quite identical in all the years. The registry has noted delay of 28 days in the appeals. Considering the period of delay ... available to Ld. AO before completion of assessment proceedings then mere venial technical breach without any mala fide intention would not call for levy of penalty u/s 271B. Similar are the other decisions as placed on record. Therefore, by following the same, we delete the impugned penalty

Diamond Tools Industries, Mumbai vs. 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3333/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(a)

vide order dated 27/03/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11 and order dated 28/03/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12, the AO levied a penalty of INR 3,59,638 and INR 3,98,499, respectively, on the basis that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income ... respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts of the present case is not justifiable, and accordingly the same is deleted

Diamond Tools Industries, Mumbai vs. 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3254/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(a)

vide order dated 27/03/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11 and order dated 28/03/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12, the AO levied a penalty of INR 3,59,638 and INR 3,98,499, respectively, on the basis that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income ... respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts of the present case is not justifiable, and accordingly the same is deleted

Rahul Impex, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3604/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)
Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

argued during the hearing, therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 12. Ground No. 6 raised in assessee’s appeal pertains to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is premature in nature and therefore is dismissed. 13. Ground No. 7 raised in assessee

Rahul Impex, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3599/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)
Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

argued during the hearing, therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 12. Ground No. 6 raised in assessee’s appeal pertains to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is premature in nature and therefore is dismissed. 13. Ground No. 7 raised in assessee

Narayanan Sundaramahalingam Rajkumar, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.763/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Narayanan Sundaramahalingam The Asst. Commissioner Of Rajkumar, Vs. Income Tax, 27, Kanchi Natarajan Street, Central Circle-3(2), Vasudevan Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. [Pan: Adnpr 5990G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.R. Krishnamoorthy, Fca Ijथ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059981903(1), Dated 22.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 21.09.2021. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Krishnamoorthy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 270A

income based on disallowance of expenditure on estimated basis does not tantamount to underreporting. Hence, no default has been committed to trigger the levy of penalty under the said section. Further, he stated that there has been no concealment of income and have not furnished any inaccurate particulars since ... section (6) of section 270A of the Act, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty for underreporting of income and moreover the disallowance of 30% of the expenditure in the quantum order was purely on estimation. Therefore, the penalty made

Srinivasan Chandrasekara Chandilya, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 1487/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1478, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486 & 1487/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 Srinivasan Chandrasekara Chandilya Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, K.V.Ranganathan & Co., Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), No.113/574, Ii Floor, Congress Chennai. Building, Tenampet, Chennai [Pan: Aaupc3096J]

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr.Samuel Pitta, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

produce evidences that it had maintained its records etc as mandated in Rule-6F of IT rules. The Ld. AO therefore proceeded to levy the penalty u/s 271A of the Act vide his order dated 31.01.2022. The grounds of appeal raised by the assesse challenging the penalty order, shows that ... grounds of appeal raised by the assesse which are accompanying Form-36 are not having any connection with the controversy at hand e.i. levy of penalty u/s 271A. The assessment order clearly stipulates that the AO had asked the assesse to submit evidences in respect of evidences maintained under Rule

Srinivasan Chandrasekara Chandilya, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 1486/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1478, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486 & 1487/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 Srinivasan Chandrasekara Chandilya Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, K.V.Ranganathan & Co., Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), No.113/574, Ii Floor, Congress Chennai. Building, Tenampet, Chennai [Pan: Aaupc3096J]

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr.Samuel Pitta, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

produce evidences that it had maintained its records etc as mandated in Rule-6F of IT rules. The Ld. AO therefore proceeded to levy the penalty u/s 271A of the Act vide his order dated 31.01.2022. The grounds of appeal raised by the assesse challenging the penalty order, shows that ... grounds of appeal raised by the assesse which are accompanying Form-36 are not having any connection with the controversy at hand e.i. levy of penalty u/s 271A. The assessment order clearly stipulates that the AO had asked the assesse to submit evidences in respect of evidences maintained under Rule