← 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

ACIT-Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Incredible India Projects Private Limited, Secunderabad

ITA 605/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.605/Hyd/2022

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 270Section 271ASection 274

1 ITA.No.605/Hyd./2022 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad [THROUGH

Ankit Vijaykumar Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1565/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 271ASection 68

when the ground was against Initiation of Ankit Vijaykumar Jain vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– proceedings and hence confirming the levy of penalty was not permissible as done LD. NFAC 9. The Order passed by Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is against the principles of natural justice and being passed

Balkrishan Kyal, Visakhapatnam vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2565/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2023-24 Anurag Kyal………..…..……….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 122/1R, Satyendra Nath Mazumder Sarani, Hazra, Kol-26. [Pan: Agipk4906H] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata ..…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2023-24 Balkrishan Kyal……..…..……….…………………….……….……….……Appellant 30/15/138, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530020. [Pan: Abdpk2892E] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata.….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 29, 2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR had challenged the impugned order thereby submitting that the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is excessive as the ld. CIT(A) have completely ignored the fact that the penalty ... Going over the discussion made above, we find that there had been lack of questioning by the search team which resulted in levying of penalty @ 60%. So, we find substance in the argument of the ld. AR that in the present case, the levy of penalty should

Rahul Kyal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2564/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2023-24 Rishi Kyal……..……..…..……….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 161/1, M.G. Road, 2Nd Floor, Room No.41, Hazra, Kol-26. [Pan: Aftpk7464G] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata.….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rahul Kyal…..……..…..……….………………………...……….……….……Appellant 122/1R, Satyendra Nath Majumdar Sarani, Tollygunge, Kalighat, Kol-700026. [Pan: Aghpk1359F] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata.….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 29, 2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR had challenged the impugned order thereby submitting that the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is excessive as the ld. CIT(A) have completely ignored the fact that the penalty ... Going over the discussion made above, we find that there had been lack of questioning by the search team which resulted in levying of penalty @ 60%. So, we find substance in the argument of the ld. AR that in the present case, the levy of penalty should

Anurag Kyal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2563/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2023-24 Anurag Kyal………..…..……….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 122/1R, Satyendra Nath Mazumder Sarani, Hazra, Kol-26. [Pan: Agipk4906H] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata ..…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2023-24 Balkrishan Kyal……..…..……….…………………….……….……….……Appellant 30/15/138, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530020. [Pan: Abdpk2892E] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata.….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 29, 2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR had challenged the impugned order thereby submitting that the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is excessive as the ld. CIT(A) have completely ignored the fact that the penalty ... Going over the discussion made above, we find that there had been lack of questioning by the search team which resulted in levying of penalty @ 60%. So, we find substance in the argument of the ld. AR that in the present case, the levy of penalty should

Rishi Kyal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2562/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2023-24 Rishi Kyal……..……..…..……….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 161/1, M.G. Road, 2Nd Floor, Room No.41, Hazra, Kol-26. [Pan: Aftpk7464G] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata.….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rahul Kyal…..……..…..……….………………………...……….……….……Appellant 122/1R, Satyendra Nath Majumdar Sarani, Tollygunge, Kalighat, Kol-700026. [Pan: Aghpk1359F] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata.….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 29, 2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR had challenged the impugned order thereby submitting that the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is excessive as the ld. CIT(A) have completely ignored the fact that the penalty ... Going over the discussion made above, we find that there had been lack of questioning by the search team which resulted in levying of penalty @ 60%. So, we find substance in the argument of the ld. AR that in the present case, the levy of penalty should

Rita Das, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 1389/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1388 & 1389/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Rita Das, Vs Acit, Cc-23 (1), Hooghly C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata,Wb-700001 Pan No. :Arhpd 6149 D

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Sr. DR

have already quashed the quantum assessment on account of invalidity of reopening, the very legs for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act no more survives and consequently the penalty as levied by the AO and as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) stands deleted. Thus, the appeal

Rita Das, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 1388/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1388 & 1389/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Rita Das, Vs Acit, Cc-23 (1), Hooghly C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata,Wb-700001 Pan No. :Arhpd 6149 D

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Sr. DR

have already quashed the quantum assessment on account of invalidity of reopening, the very legs for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act no more survives and consequently the penalty as levied by the AO and as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) stands deleted. Thus, the appeal

Mercy Education Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 2231/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

construed as a return of income filed in terms of Section 139(4A) of the Act and ought to have appreciated that the levy of penalty in terms of Section 272A(2)(e) was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts ... mandatorily to make the claim for exemption under Section 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Act and further ought to have appreciated that the levy of penalty under such circumstances should be reckoned as bad in law. 9. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that in any event, the present penal

Mr Akil Abbas Rassai, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7622/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmr. Akil Abbas Rassai Dcit Cirlce-22(1), 144 Gulistan, S. V. Road Piramal Chambers, Khar West, Mumbai - Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai- 400 052 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacpr1058F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

submissions and perused the material available on record. The factual position is undisputed. The addition which formed the sole basis for initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A has been set aside by the Tribunal, and the issue has been remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration ... Penalty proceedings under section 270A, though distinct in form, are nonetheless dependent in substance upon the outcome of the quantum proceedings. The levy of penalty presupposes a crystallised finding of under-reported income as contemplated under the statute. Where the very addition giving rise to such alleged under-reporting

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. M/S. Amaya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Palghar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5776/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court (Itxal/27362/2024) Against Quantum & The Same Is Pending?”

Section 271(1)(c)

aside or reversed by a superior forum. So long as the quantum addition stands deleted by a subsisting order of this Tribunal, the levy of penalty cannot be sustained on a speculative premise that the quantum may be restored at some indeterminate future point. 6. The learned CIT(A), therefore

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1942/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

completed assessment and initiated penalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. The section 271AAB of the Act provides for levy of penalty in a case where search has been initiated on or after 1st July, 2012. The new section provides that,- (a) If undisclosed income is admitted during the course ... above mentioned facts and circumstances, the addition on the basis of which the penalty is initiated, is sustained and further, warrants the levy of penalty, as the assessee han accepted the addition made in the assessment order on account of suppression of true total income to the extent of additions

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1941/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Sudhakar Bare, CIT-
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

completed assessment and initiated penalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. The section 271AAB of the Act provides for levy of penalty in a case where search has been initiated on or afier 1st July, 2012. The new section provides that,- (a) If undisclosed income is admitted during the course ... above mentioned facts and circumstances, the addition on the basis of which the penalty is initiated, is sustained and further, warrants the levy of penalty, as the assessee han accepted the addition made in the assessment order on account of suppression of true total income to the extent of additions

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1940/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

completed assessment and initiated penalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. The section 271AAB of the Act provides for levy of penalty in a case where search has been initiated on or after 1st July, 2012. The new section provides that,- (a) If undisclosed income is admitted during the course ... above mentioned facts and circumstances, the addition on the basis of which the penalty is initiated, is sustained and further, warrants the levy of penalty, as the assessee han accepted the addition made in the assessment order on account of suppression of true total income to the extent of additions

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1939/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Sudhakar Bare, CIT-
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

completed assessment and initiated penalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. The section 271AAB of the Act provides for levy of penalty in a case where search has been initiated on or afier 1st July, 2012. The new section provides that,- (a) If undisclosed income is admitted during the course ... above mentioned facts and circumstances, the addition on the basis of which the penalty is initiated, is sustained and further, warrants the levy of penalty, as the assessee han accepted the addition made in the assessment order on account of suppression of true total income to the extent of additions

Rajesh B, Jain As Legal of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1938/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir Of Bhanwarlal Jain, 171, 17Th Floor, Silver Arch, Petit Hall Compound, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai - 400006 Pan: Aafpj1924R Assessee -अपीलार्थी / Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-19(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Revenue - प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv, Shri Fenil Bhat & Shri Sucheck Anchaliya, Ca

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

completed assessment and initiated penalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. The section 271AAB of the Act provides for levy of penalty in a case where search has been initiated on or after 1st July, 2012. The new section provides that,- (a) If undisclosed income is admitted during the course ... above mentioned facts and circumstances, the addition on the basis of which the penalty is initiated, is sustained and further, warrants the levy of penalty, as the assessee han accepted the addition made in the assessment order on account of suppression of true total income to the extent of additions

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1937/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

completed assessment and initiated penalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. The section 271AAB of the Act provides for levy of penalty in a case where search has been initiated on or after 1st July, 2012. The new section provides that,- (a) If undisclosed income is admitted during the course ... above mentioned facts and circumstances, the addition on the basis of which the penalty is initiated, is sustained and further, warrants the levy of penalty, as the assessee han accepted the addition made in the assessment order on account of suppression of true total income to the extent of additions

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1936/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Sudhakar Bare, CIT-
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

completed assessment and initiated penalty notice u/s. 271AAB of the Act. The section 271AAB of the Act provides for levy of penalty in a case where search has been initiated on or afier 1st July, 2012. The new section provides that,- (a) If undisclosed income is admitted during the course ... above mentioned facts and circumstances, the addition on the basis of which the penalty is initiated, is sustained and further, warrants the levy of penalty, as the assessee han accepted the addition made in the assessment order on account of suppression of true total income to the extent of additions

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Ambala, Ambala Cantt vs. Surinder Kumar Verma, Ambala

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 447/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.447/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito Ward-4 Shri Surinder Kumar Verma Aaykar Bhawan, B.C. Bazar बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 38, Kabir Nagar Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acspv-3298-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 24-02-2024 Deleting Penalty Of Rs.70,53,886/- As Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 21-09-2015. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Pleaded For Restoration Of Penalty As Levied By Ld. Ao. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 1

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

issued to the assessee u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 during the course of penalty proceedings. The assessee remained non- compliant and accordingly, Ld. AO levied impugned penalty for concealment of particulars of income. 3. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) considered the explanation as well as case laws as cited ... record any satisfaction in absolute terms whether the assessee had concealed income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the levy of penalty would be invalid and deserves to be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) concurred that Ld. AO, in the assessment order, had initiated penalty for concealment

Chartered Speed Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2286/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

Aggrieved against the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has also confirmed the levy of penalty by holding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income relating to the addition made u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act, thereby upheld the levy of penalty ... appeal against the quantum order, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition but no further appeal preferred by the assessee. Thereafter Ld. A.O. levied minimum penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.6,89,594/-. 6.3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was neither concealment