← 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, Central Circle-1, Thane vs. Ravi Developments, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 4806/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kanse, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

satisfactory and not voluntary disclosure, the Assessing Officer rejected the same and proceeded Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT to levy the penalty of Rs.5,75,673/- which is 100% of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee during the current assessment year. 5. Aggrieved with ... that of the Ld. CIT[A], it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

satisfactory and not voluntary disclosure, the Assessing Officer rejected the same and proceeded Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT to levy the penalty of Rs.5,75,673/- which is 100% of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee during the current assessment year. 5. Aggrieved with ... that of the Ld. CIT[A], it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

satisfactory and not voluntary disclosure, the Assessing Officer rejected the same and proceeded Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT to levy the penalty of Rs.5,75,673/- which is 100% of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee during the current assessment year. 5. Aggrieved with ... that of the Ld. CIT[A], it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi

Finance & Accounts Officer, Dios, Lucknow. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Lucknow

ITA 106/LKW/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 198Section 199Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

results. In absence of any written submission/representation forthcoming the Ld. AO culminated the proceedings by a consolidated order dt. 02/05/2014 and a levied of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act equal to 100% of TDS liability spelt-out in SCN as; Sr ITA No Asstt Year Penalty Levied ... default in furnishing e- TDS returns u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy of penalty u/s 272A(2) of the Act, then in line with the provisions of said section in case a person establishes its case of reasonable

Finance & Accounts Officer, Dios, Lucknow. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Lucknow

ITA 105/LKW/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 198Section 199Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

results. In absence of any written submission/representation forthcoming the Ld. AO culminated the proceedings by a consolidated order dt. 02/05/2014 and a levied of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act equal to 100% of TDS liability spelt-out in SCN as; Sr ITA No Asstt Year Penalty Levied ... default in furnishing e- TDS returns u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy of penalty u/s 272A(2) of the Act, then in line with the provisions of said section in case a person establishes its case of reasonable

Finance & Accounts Officer, Dios, Lucknow. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Lucknow

ITA 104/LKW/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 198Section 199Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

results. In absence of any written submission/representation forthcoming the Ld. AO culminated the proceedings by a consolidated order dt. 02/05/2014 and a levied of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act equal to 100% of TDS liability spelt-out in SCN as; Sr ITA No Asstt Year Penalty Levied ... default in furnishing e- TDS returns u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy of penalty u/s 272A(2) of the Act, then in line with the provisions of said section in case a person establishes its case of reasonable

Finance & Accounts Officer, Dios, Lucknow. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Lucknow.

ITA 103/LKW/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 198Section 199Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

results. In absence of any written submission/representation forthcoming the Ld. AO culminated the proceedings by a consolidated order dt. 02/05/2014 and a levied of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act equal to 100% of TDS liability spelt-out in SCN as; Sr ITA No Asstt Year Penalty Levied ... default in furnishing e- TDS returns u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy of penalty u/s 272A(2) of the Act, then in line with the provisions of said section in case a person establishes its case of reasonable

Finance & Accounts Officer, Dios, Lucknow. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Lucknow

ITA 102/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 198Section 199Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

results. In absence of any written submission/representation forthcoming the Ld. AO culminated the proceedings by a consolidated order dt. 02/05/2014 and a levied of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act equal to 100% of TDS liability spelt-out in SCN as; Sr ITA No Asstt Year Penalty Levied ... default in furnishing e- TDS returns u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy of penalty u/s 272A(2) of the Act, then in line with the provisions of said section in case a person establishes its case of reasonable

Lakshmanana Nachammai, Madurai vs. ACIT Non Corp Circle 2, Madurai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 543/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.542 & 543/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Lakshmanan Nachammai, The Acit, Plot No.59, Corporate Circle-2, Anna Nagar, Madurai. Madurai-625 020. [Pan: Adhpn 3775 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

Ld.CIT(A) confirming penalty levied u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act”). Brief facts relevant for levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act, are that the assessee had filed her return of income for AY 2017-18 on 14.04.2018, whereas, she had to file

Lakshmanana Nachammai, Madurai vs. ACIT Non Corp Circle 2, Madurai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 542/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.542 & 543/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Lakshmanan Nachammai, The Acit, Plot No.59, Corporate Circle-2, Anna Nagar, Madurai. Madurai-625 020. [Pan: Adhpn 3775 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

Ld.CIT(A) confirming penalty levied u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act”). Brief facts relevant for levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act, are that the assessee had filed her return of income for AY 2017-18 on 14.04.2018, whereas, she had to file

Uttamchand Hastimal Jain, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1and 2, Tps, Vijayapur

ITA 567/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavuttamchand Hastimal Jain The Income Tax Officer Prop. Of Sumatinath Traders Ward - 1 & 2 (Tps) Kirana Bazar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Vijayapura 586101 Near All India Raido Pan – Addpj2783P Athani Road, Vijayapura 586104 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061137028(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 19.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-05. 2. Facts Leading To The Filing Of Present Appeal Are, The Assessee Is An Individual Running A Kirana Shop In Vijayapura, Karnataka. For The Impugned Assessment Year He Has Filed His Return Of Income(Roi) Declaring An Income Of Rs 4,72,780/- On 31.10.2014. Thereafter, An Information, Revealing That Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs. 3,10,13,708/- In Its Bank Account With Shri Gurubasava Urban Credit Souharda Co-Op. Ltd, Surfaced With Department. Accordingly The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 2 Uttamchand Hastimal Jain 148 Of The Vide Notice Dated 31.03.2021. In Response To The 148 Notice The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Declaring An Income Of Rs 21,68,535/-. While Concluding The Assessment The Ao Accepted The Revised Computation Without Any Demur. However, The Ao Simultaneously, Initiated Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Alleging That Assessee Has Concealed His Income. Afterwards, The Ao Vide Its Order Dated 26.09.2022, Levied Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

revised computation filed by the assessee has been accepted by the AO. This fact is very crucial for seeing the justification of the levy of penalty. 7. Before proceedings further we deem it appropriate to dwell upon the provisions of explanation-1 appended to section 271(1)(c). Explanation

Iycworld Softinfrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Centralized Processing Cell - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

ITA 909/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahander Singh Dagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

appreciating that the action of Learned Assessing Officer by levying penalty is not as per law as it exited on the date of levy of penalty u/s 234E.” 3. The grounds of appeal are related to charging of late fee of Rs. 14,400/- u/s. 234E

Iycworld Softinfrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Centralized Processing Cell - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

ITA 908/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahander Singh Dagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

appreciating that the action of Learned Assessing Officer by levying penalty is not as per law as it exited on the date of levy of penalty u/s 234E.” 3. The grounds of appeal are related to charging of late fee of Rs. 14,400/- u/s. 234E

Iycworld Softinfrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Centralized Processing Cell - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

ITA 907/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahander Singh Dagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

appreciating that the action of Learned Assessing Officer by levying penalty is not as per law as it exited on the date of levy of penalty u/s 234E.” 3. The grounds of appeal are related to charging of late fee of Rs. 14,400/- u/s. 234E

Iycworld Softinfrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Centralized Processing Cell - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

ITA 906/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahander Singh Dagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

appreciating that the action of Learned Assessing Officer by levying penalty is not as per law as it exited on the date of levy of penalty u/s 234E.” 3. The grounds of appeal are related to charging of late fee of Rs. 14,400/- u/s. 234E

Shubh Karan Baid., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

opinion, the said approach of the AO in making assessment without framing the charges and issuing notice without being sure as to levy of penalty on particular charge is not permissible under the Act. This is undisputed that the assessee has disclosed all the particulars in the return of income

Laxmilal Badolla, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bangalore

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

ITA 815/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Neha Shaya, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 271BSection 271D

cash from the buyers, who were unable to pay by way of account payee cheque or demand draft. The CIT (A) affirmed the levy of penalty. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before us and raised 5 grounds of appeal ... ground 5 is general in nature and in rest of grounds solitary issue involved in respect of the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised following arguments. . Page 3 of 6 a) The initiation of the penalty proceedings after

Rita Hemchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO. Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ito. Int Tax Ward Rita Hemchand Gandhi 2(3)(1) Ayodhya Apartments, 17Th Floor, Air India Flat No.101, Ramgali, Vs. Building, Kandivali (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 195Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

satisfied that assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealed the income. He levied the penalty of ₹ 150,606/– by penalty order dated 27/9/2022 passed under section 271 (1) (C) of the act. 06. Assessee aggrieved with the penalty order preferred an appeal before the learned ... deductor and not the deductee i.e. assessee. For this, the assessee Rita Hemchand Gandhi; A.Y. 2013-14 could not have been penalized for levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the act. Honourable Supreme Court in case of PricewaterhouseCoopers private limited versus CIT (supra) in reopened assessment proceedings

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

unexplained share capital confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and in ITA No. 160/Kol/2024 is against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made 2 I.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act which ... challenge before us in ITA No. 161/Kol/2023. Since the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee