“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Laxmi Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2325/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassistant Commissioner Of Vs Laxmi Diamond Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Ew-200, G Block Bharat Diamond 903, Prathistha Bhavan, Old Course, Bandra Kurla Complex, Cgo Complex, M.K. Road, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Churchgate (E), Mumbai-400020 Pan-Aabcl1815G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.A. VaidyalinganFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane(CIT - DR)

Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92D(3)

revenue, the ITAT, Mumbai vide order dated 27.12.2018 has dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of levy of penalty u/s.271G for A.Y.2011-12 being identical to that for AY.2012-13, the penalty levied u/s.271G for A.Y 2012-13 should also be deleted. The appellant provided copies ... orders of CIT(A) and ITAT for AY. 2011-12. 5.3.4 The order of the CIT(A) against the order of levy of penalty u/s.271G for AY. 2011- 12 and also the order of ITAT Mumbai for AY. 2011-12 in the case of the appellant has been perused

M/S Yamuna Power & Infrastructure Ltd., Jagadhri vs. DCIT, Circle, Yamunanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1229/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 80ISection 92C

Panchkula dt. 19/06/2019 wherein the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the levy of penalty under section 271AA amounting to Rs. 5,55,887/- for alleged default in not reporting the specified domestic transaction in Form No. 3CEB. 2. Briefly the facts ... assessee but not finding the same acceptable, the AO held the assessee to be liable for penalty under section 271AA and levied the penalty of Rs. 5,55,887/- @ 2% of the total specified domestic transactions amounting to Rs. 2,77,94,337/-. 2.4 As per the AO, the assessee

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Kondapur vs. Hyma Developers Private Limited (Formerly Known As Dlf Homes Kokapet Pvt. Ltd.), Madhapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 543/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri CH Rajeswara Reddy, DR

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

assessment proceedings as well as at the "me of penalty proceedings. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) challenging the levy of penalty sta"ng that all the par"culars were furnished before the learned Assessing Officer and it is only on verifying those par"culars learned ... assessment year 2011-12 in assessee’s own case levying penalty, and held that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty as it could not be said that the assessee had furnished inaccurate par"culars of income or had concealed the par"culars of income and accordingly

Phool Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. Rjn-W-(106)(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 361/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: ShriAshish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

361/JP/2024 is treated as allowed. 8. So far as the appeal in ITA No. 360/JPR/2024 is concerned the same is related to the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act for an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Aggrieved from that levy of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... also not favour to the assessee and confirmed the levy of penalty by holding as under:- “ T have carefully considered the ground of appeal, statement of facts of the case and assessment order. It is a fact on the record that the appellant has contended that the failure to comply

Phool Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. Rjn-W-(106)(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 360/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: ShriAshish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

Tarana Jagdish Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 250/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 269SSection 271D

assessee against order dated 23/11/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s.271D. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs.16,00,000/- levied by the ld. AO. 2 M/s. Tarana Jagdish Singh 3. The brief facts are that assessee had entered into ... assessee could not prove that there existed an emergency constituting a reasonable cause for violation of provision of Section 269SS and accordingly, he levied the penalty u/s.271D of the Act for the entire amount of Rs.16,00,000/-. 4. The ld. CIT (A) too has confirmed the said addition after

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Lakhani Arman Shoes Private Limited, Faridabad

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2926/DEL/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

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

inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income to the extent of Rs. 3,20,32,751/- and vide penalty order dated 27.03.2019 levied a penalty of Rs. 98,98,120/- at the rate of 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved against it the assessee preferred appeal before ... penalty order it is not clear under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty was levied. There being no specific charge for levy of penalty, the penalty order is therefore, contrary to law laid down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Accordingly, impugned penalty order passed

Prashant Jitendra Sarvaya, Mumbai vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax 30 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2376/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

2376/MUM/2024 (Α.Υ.2015-16) Prashant Jitendra Sarvaya, Mumbai explanations. Finally the AO was not satisfied with the submissions and levied a penalty of Rs. 26,48,000/- and passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 22-06- 2017. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order ... assessee submitted that the assessee has cooperated in submitting the information with the A.O. Further the notice issued for levy of penalty is invalid and relied on the judicial decisions and prayed for allowing the appeal. Contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the levy

Soma Sekhar Polavarapu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)

failed to appreciate that the adhoc disallowance made by the A.O. during assessment proceedings cannot be a reason for levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the penalty proceedings are independent of quantum proceedings. 6. Any other ground that ... vide order dt.29.12.2019. On the same addition of Rs.5,71,552/-, the Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs.3,53,220/- u/s 270A(9)(a) of the Act vide his order dated 19/01/2022. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the assessee

Kent Engineering India Private Limted, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 4750/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Kent Engineering India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Commissioner Of Income Shastri Marg, Vikharoli, Tax (Appeal), 1(2)(1), Gagorre Nagar, S.O. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Embassy 247, Tower C Mumbai-400 020 Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr1966M Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dhiraj Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the "CIT[A]') has erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 8,811,560. Ground No. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed ... erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Learned AO erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in levying of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without establishing any mens rea on part of the Appellant without which penalty could not have been

Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 167/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

short] dated 18.01.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The penalty in the present case was levied ... made to explain that both the claims of the assessee were bonafidely made to explain that it was not a case fit for levy of penalty since no particulars of income had been concealed by the assessee - whether with respect to the amounts disallowed

Shubhangi Pundlikrao Kohade, Yavatmal vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2, Yavatmal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

narrow compass. 7. We have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record. The short point of adjudication is regarding levy of penalty under section 44AB of the Act for failure to furnish the tax audit report in the prescribed format within the due date. It appears from

Ajmair Singh Bhullar, Amritsar vs. DCIT, Circle-1, International Taxation, Chandigarh

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

ITA 573/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: JUSTICE (RETD) C.V. BHADANG (President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

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

been non compliance on the part of the assessee and in view of that, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) read with Section 274 of the Act as there was no reasonable cause being shown by the assessee ... being initiated and various notices being issued to him. We find that the said claim of the assessee need to be verified before levy of penalty for non-compliance to the notices issued by AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The ld CIT(A) has decided the appeal

Ibrahim Kovvaprath, Kannur vs. The ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 273/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271B

delay in filing the audit report along with the return of income. A reply dt. 02.12.2019 was filed. However the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 1,33,665/- on the assessee vide order dt. 19.02.2020. An appeal was preferred against the said order to the National Faceless Appeal ... backdrop of section 273B, the absence of reasonable cause, which has to be established by the assessee, is the sine qua non. 9. Levy of penalty under section 271B is not automatic. Before levying a penalty, the Ld.AO must find out that even if any failure was referred

Triveni Wires Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Additional Or Joint Or Deputy Or Assistant CIT Or Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 298/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Benjwala

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 272A(1)(d)

levied by the AO-That on the facts and decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, the levy of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) for non compliances of notices issued during assessment proceedings so initiated during Covid-19 Pandemics is unjustifiable, untenable as per law and also

Goodwill Team Papers Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

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

ITA 813/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 813/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 271BSection 44A

that once audit report has been made available before the AO, when the assessment proceedings were completed, then, there is no reason for levy of penalty. 8. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that reasons ... ACIT (supra) for the assessment year 2015-16, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act and accordingly, the penalty levied stands deleted.” 8. In that case, before ITAT., Chennai Benches audit of accounts

Ambereen Islam, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40, Kolkata

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

ITA 262/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.262/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ambereen Islam….…………………..……………………....………....Appellant 71, Princep Street, Chandni Chawk, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan: Aakpi3448Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noted That The Assessee Had Raised A Claim Of Duty Draw Back To The Tune Of Rs.3,67,376/-, Whereas, The Assessee Had Disclosed A Sum Of Rs.69,525/- Under The Head ‘Duty Draw Back’. On Being Asked To Explain In This Respect, The Assessee Explained That The Balance Amount Of Rs.2,97,851/- Was Not Received During The Year. That The Amount Of

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

income in respect of the remaining amount of duty draw back and imposed the impugned penalty. Further, the Assessing Officer also levied minor penalty on account of claim of inflated liability to the tune of Rs.1005/-. The ld. counsel has further submitted that the assessee preferred appeal before ... both the parties, we are of the view that it will be in the interests of justice, if the impugned matter regarding the levy of penalty is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with I.T.A. No.262/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ambereen Islam a direction to decide

Aplnagappa Chettiar, Madurai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.748/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri A.Pl.Nagappa Chettiar, The Acit, Plot No.353, Anna Nagar, Circle-3, Madurai-625 020. Trichy.

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

Section 271(1)(c)

consistently held such notices to be bad in law for not specifying the specific fault for which the assessee being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts including the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court ... Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus, the Hon’ble High Court upheld

K. S. Velusamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

Appeals stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 125/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.123/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri K.S. Velusamy Dcit बनाम/ #41, Ayyasamy Street, Central Circle-3(3), Shanmugam Road,West Tambaram, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 045. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agupv-1436-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT) -Ld. DR

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

merits, Ld. AR submitted that finally the additions have been sustained on estimated basis only and therefore, the same do not call for levy of penalty in terms of various judicial decisions. The copies of the same have been placed on record. The Ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed the legal ... further held by Hon’ble Court that the Tribunal rightly found that the present case was not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 27(1)(c) by finding that the initial impression of the Assessing Officer was incorrect with regard to the deposit. The Hon’ble Court also

K. S. Velusamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

Appeals stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 124/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT) -Ld. DR

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