levy of penalty — 5,057 case laws

Techman Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6294/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Arta Trana Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Hence, the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is being remanded to the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure of levy of penalty as per the provisions of Section 275(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 Techman Buildwell (P) Ltd. 3. In the result, the appeal

Shr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 507/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 143(3)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(c)

vide his order dt.12.04.2021. On the same addition of Rs.29,18,074/-, the Ld. AO levied the penalty of Rs.16,08,000/- u/s. 270A(9)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 07.01.2022. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. AO, assessee filed appeal before ... could be seen from the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee failed to produce the explanation with regards to the levy of penalty u/s. 270A(9)(c) of the Act, which resulted in passing the orders without consideration thereof. It is a fact that the assessee does

Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers Private Limited, Madurai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 794/CHNY/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.794/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers – The Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2, 285/91 B, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai. Madurai-625 001. [Pan: Aarcs 2844 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

confirming the penalty. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee has raised a legal issue that the notice issued by the AO before levy of penalty dated 31.12.2016 u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, M/s.Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: 1961 (hereinafter in short ‘the Act’) was defective/invalid ... submitted that the AO has not struck down the limbs/faults which are not applicable in the facts of the assessee’s case for levy of penalty. In other words, according to the assessee, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO erred in imposing penalty u/s.271

Shri Babu Munirathinam, Chennai vs. The JCIT, Ncr-17, Chennai

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 1061/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1061/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Babu Munirathinam, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of No. 45/13, Sriuvallur Road, Perambur, Income Tax, Chennai 600 011. Non Corporate Range 17, Chennai. [Pan:Anypm7361H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground Nos. 1 To 4 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Levied By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271D

machineries. Thus, we are of the opinion that the explanation offered against show cause notice before the authorities below were reasonable and therefore, levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act is untenable. Moreover, on an identical facts and circumstances in similar issue, in the case of Ms. Nanda ... www.judis.nic.in Lakshmi Trust Co. [reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99], and held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, the levy of penalty was not warranted. The Tribunal further held that the transaction between the father in law and the daughter in law was a genuine transaction

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 618/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

AO/JCIT was not at all coming out from the evidence relied/referred by the AO/JCIT himself. Hence there is no justification for levying the penalties u/s 271D and 271E of the Act. 5.1 During the course of hearings, it was submitted before the Bench that there were huge and fatal variations ... contradictions between the observation made by the AO and the show cause notice issued by the JCIT and the penalty order levying the penalty. Among other the following was highlighted for the same; ● The AO observed in the assessment order that the alleged breach was with regard to a transaction

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 617/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

AO/JCIT was not at all coming out from the evidence relied/referred by the AO/JCIT himself. Hence there is no justification for levying the penalties u/s 271D and 271E of the Act. 5.1 During the course of hearings, it was submitted before the Bench that there were huge and fatal variations ... contradictions between the observation made by the AO and the show cause notice issued by the JCIT and the penalty order levying the penalty. Among other the following was highlighted for the same; ● The AO observed in the assessment order that the alleged breach was with regard to a transaction

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 616/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

AO/JCIT was not at all coming out from the evidence relied/referred by the AO/JCIT himself. Hence there is no justification for levying the penalties u/s 271D and 271E of the Act. 5.1 During the course of hearings, it was submitted before the Bench that there were huge and fatal variations ... contradictions between the observation made by the AO and the show cause notice issued by the JCIT and the penalty order levying the penalty. Among other the following was highlighted for the same; ● The AO observed in the assessment order that the alleged breach was with regard to a transaction

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 615/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

AO/JCIT was not at all coming out from the evidence relied/referred by the AO/JCIT himself. Hence there is no justification for levying the penalties u/s 271D and 271E of the Act. 5.1 During the course of hearings, it was submitted before the Bench that there were huge and fatal variations ... contradictions between the observation made by the AO and the show cause notice issued by the JCIT and the penalty order levying the penalty. Among other the following was highlighted for the same; ● The AO observed in the assessment order that the alleged breach was with regard to a transaction

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 614/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

AO/JCIT was not at all coming out from the evidence relied/referred by the AO/JCIT himself. Hence there is no justification for levying the penalties u/s 271D and 271E of the Act. 5.1 During the course of hearings, it was submitted before the Bench that there were huge and fatal variations ... contradictions between the observation made by the AO and the show cause notice issued by the JCIT and the penalty order levying the penalty. Among other the following was highlighted for the same; ● The AO observed in the assessment order that the alleged breach was with regard to a transaction

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 613/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

AO/JCIT was not at all coming out from the evidence relied/referred by the AO/JCIT himself. Hence there is no justification for levying the penalties u/s 271D and 271E of the Act. 5.1 During the course of hearings, it was submitted before the Bench that there were huge and fatal variations ... contradictions between the observation made by the AO and the show cause notice issued by the JCIT and the penalty order levying the penalty. Among other the following was highlighted for the same; ● The AO observed in the assessment order that the alleged breach was with regard to a transaction

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 612/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

AO/JCIT was not at all coming out from the evidence relied/referred by the AO/JCIT himself. Hence there is no justification for levying the penalties u/s 271D and 271E of the Act. 5.1 During the course of hearings, it was submitted before the Bench that there were huge and fatal variations ... contradictions between the observation made by the AO and the show cause notice issued by the JCIT and the penalty order levying the penalty. Among other the following was highlighted for the same; ● The AO observed in the assessment order that the alleged breach was with regard to a transaction

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 611/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

AO/JCIT was not at all coming out from the evidence relied/referred by the AO/JCIT himself. Hence there is no justification for levying the penalties u/s 271D and 271E of the Act. 5.1 During the course of hearings, it was submitted before the Bench that there were huge and fatal variations ... contradictions between the observation made by the AO and the show cause notice issued by the JCIT and the penalty order levying the penalty. Among other the following was highlighted for the same; ● The AO observed in the assessment order that the alleged breach was with regard to a transaction

Shri Bhagwanbhai Ranchhodbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1076/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

against the quantum additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in part , both the assessees are also in appeal before us against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take ... partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 1075/Ahd/2019 & 1076/Ahd/2019 40. ITA Nos. 1075/Ahd/2019 & 1076/Ahd/2019 are against order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming levy of penalty made by the Assessing Officer. While making the addition, Ld. CIT(A) has made the following observations: “3.3. I have carefully considered assessment order, penalty

Late Bhagwatsinh Jibhubhai Chavda)L/H.Bhaktiben Bhagwatsinh Chavda, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1075/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

against the quantum additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in part , both the assessees are also in appeal before us against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take ... partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 1075/Ahd/2019 & 1076/Ahd/2019 40. ITA Nos. 1075/Ahd/2019 & 1076/Ahd/2019 are against order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming levy of penalty made by the Assessing Officer. While making the addition, Ld. CIT(A) has made the following observations: “3.3. I have carefully considered assessment order, penalty

Bhaktiben Bhagwatsinh Chavda, (L/H of Late Bhagwatsinh J Chavda), Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-14(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 511/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

against the quantum additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in part , both the assessees are also in appeal before us against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take ... partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 1075/Ahd/2019 & 1076/Ahd/2019 40. ITA Nos. 1075/Ahd/2019 & 1076/Ahd/2019 are against order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming levy of penalty made by the Assessing Officer. While making the addition, Ld. CIT(A) has made the following observations: “3.3. I have carefully considered assessment order, penalty

Shri Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

against the quantum additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in part , both the assessees are also in appeal before us against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take ... partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 1075/Ahd/2019 & 1076/Ahd/2019 40. ITA Nos. 1075/Ahd/2019 & 1076/Ahd/2019 are against order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming levy of penalty made by the Assessing Officer. While making the addition, Ld. CIT(A) has made the following observations: “3.3. I have carefully considered assessment order, penalty

Sankarlingam Sankar Through His Legal Heir Ganesh Shankar, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 708/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aadesh Kumar AgrariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273BSection 274

preventive him for doing so, therefore, the assessee’s legal heir has defaulted by not filing the return of income. Accordingly, the AO levy of penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F of the Act. 7. As regards, the non compliance with the notice issued ... notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and has commited a default u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 8. It is evident from the record that there is no dispute regarding the fact

Sankarlingam Sankar Through His Legal Heir Ganesh Shankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 706/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aadesh Kumar AgrariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273BSection 274

preventive him for doing so, therefore, the assessee’s legal heir has defaulted by not filing the return of income. Accordingly, the AO levy of penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F of the Act. 7. As regards, the non compliance with the notice issued ... notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and has commited a default u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 8. It is evident from the record that there is no dispute regarding the fact

Diamour Jewels Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1965/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Krupali Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Provident Fund Organisation Head Office, New Delhi dated 15.05.2020 bearing Ref. No. C- I/Misc/2020-21/Vol.1/1112, relaxing the establishments and factories covered under EPF from levy of Penalty for delay in deposit of dues during lock down. 3. The learned Addl/JCIT(A) has violated the principle of natural justice by ignoring submissions

Jivanlal Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1330/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Jivanlal Corporation ITA No. 1330/Mum./2024 2. The only grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts ... separately. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO vide order dated 28/01/2022 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied a penalty of INR 1,92,450. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy

“levy of penalty”

Leading authorities on levy of penalty

Judgments citing levy of penalty

Techman Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

Shr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers Private Limited, Madurai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai

Shri Babu Munirathinam, Chennai vs. The JCIT, Ncr-17, Chennai

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

Shri Bhagwanbhai Ranchhodbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Late Bhagwatsinh Jibhubhai Chavda)L/H.Bhaktiben Bhagwatsinh Chavda, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Bhaktiben Bhagwatsinh Chavda, (L/H of Late Bhagwatsinh J Chavda), Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-14(2), Ahmedabad

Shri Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Ahmedabad

Sankarlingam Sankar Through His Legal Heir Ganesh Shankar, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

Sankarlingam Sankar Through His Legal Heir Ganesh Shankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

Diamour Jewels Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bengaluru

Jivanlal Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai