← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries-Vst Diesel Engines Private Limited, Mysuru

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

ITA 505/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ankith, CA
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

order giving effect to MAP resolution by assessee suo-moto amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. The facts that lead to levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are stated in brief as under:- 4.1 The brief facts of the case ... ground that assessee was not eligible to claim brought forward losses and accordingly furnished inaccurate particulars of Income during the Assessment proceedings had levied minimum penalty of Rs. 1,78,30,779/- vide Penalty Order passed U/s 271(1)(c) dated 27/06/2019. 4.12 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Penalty Order

Tejraj Dalichand Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 560/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Tejraj Dalichand Jain National Faceless Flat No. 14, Nakshtra, Assessment Centre Vs. Chandavarkar Road, Ito 25(2)(2) Borivali (West)- 400092. Bkc, Mumbai. Pan: Aabpj3476C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (“Act” In Short) Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059124020(1) Dated 28.12.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised: “The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To, One Another-

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT), Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 271BSection 28Section 28(5)Section 44A

alter or amend the aforestated ground of appeal.” 3. There is only one ground of appeal involved in this case i.e. levy of penalty of Rs.16,366/- u/s. 271B of the Act. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 4870/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. Nos 4473, 4472 & 4470/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12)

Section 271(1)(c)

addition on account of bogus purchases estimating @8% of bogus purchases as income and was accepted by the assessee and therefore, the levy of penalty on estimated income cannot be sustained. Further the Ld. AR also made submissions on validity of issue of penalty notice and relied on the judicial ... rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue as envisaged by the Ld. AR that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 6 ITA. No. 4473, 4472, 4470 & 4870/MUM/2023. Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai. of the Act by the A.O based on the assessment

Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 4473/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. Nos 4473, 4472 & 4470/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12)

Section 271(1)(c)

addition on account of bogus purchases estimating @8% of bogus purchases as income and was accepted by the assessee and therefore, the levy of penalty on estimated income cannot be sustained. Further the Ld. AR also made submissions on validity of issue of penalty notice and relied on the judicial ... rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue as envisaged by the Ld. AR that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 6 ITA. No. 4473, 4472, 4470 & 4870/MUM/2023. Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai. of the Act by the A.O based on the assessment

Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ACIT-15(2), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 4472/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. Nos 4473, 4472 & 4470/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12)

Section 271(1)(c)

addition on account of bogus purchases estimating @8% of bogus purchases as income and was accepted by the assessee and therefore, the levy of penalty on estimated income cannot be sustained. Further the Ld. AR also made submissions on validity of issue of penalty notice and relied on the judicial ... rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue as envisaged by the Ld. AR that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 6 ITA. No. 4473, 4472, 4470 & 4870/MUM/2023. Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai. of the Act by the A.O based on the assessment

Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 4470/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. Nos 4473, 4472 & 4470/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12)

Section 271(1)(c)

addition on account of bogus purchases estimating @8% of bogus purchases as income and was accepted by the assessee and therefore, the levy of penalty on estimated income cannot be sustained. Further the Ld. AR also made submissions on validity of issue of penalty notice and relied on the judicial ... rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue as envisaged by the Ld. AR that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 6 ITA. No. 4473, 4472, 4470 & 4870/MUM/2023. Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai. of the Act by the A.O based on the assessment

Saint Gobain Materiaux De Construction Sas, France vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITANo

ITA 4244/MUM/2023[AY 2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Akram KhanFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar SRDR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 92E

section271BA of the Act, date of order30/04/2019. 2. The assesseehas taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Both the lower authorities erred in levying a penalty under Section 271BA amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that there was a ‘reasonable cause ... assessment proceedings itself. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we do not find this to be a fit case for the levy of penalty under section 271BA of the Act. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned Penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-. 7. The assessee

Namita Tiwari, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2980/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2980/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 271F

income for the AY 2012-13 as she derived only income from salary which is less than Rs.5 lakhs. Therefore, the question of levy of penalty u/s 271F of the Act for non-furnishing of return for the Ay 2012-13 does not arise. Thus, the penalty levied u/s 271F

Malla Appalaraju, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/VIZ/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

decision of the Ld. CIT(A), it is held that the addition made on account of estimation of income is not considered for levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as the same is done on estimation basis. However, the total addition made ... same with any material evidences and the Ld. CIT(A) has also upheld this addition with his observations……….” Accordingly, the Ld. AO levied the penalty of Rs. 12,23,211/- U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and passed the order on 27/03/2018. Against the penalty order passed

Sree Constructions, Vijayawada vs. Joint Commissioner of Income, Range-2, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.18/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Sree Constructions, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of G-3, Anjali Apartments, Income Tax, Sitarama Nagar, Patamata Lanka, Range-2, Vijayawada-520010. Vijayawada. Pan: Abvfs 5848 N (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274

required U/s. 273B of the Act, the violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act will be attracted. Accordingly, the Ld. JCIT levied a penalty of Rs. 82,62,000/- U/s. 271D of the Act and passed the order U/s. 271D of the Act on 12/02/2022. Aggrieved ... 271D amounting to Rs. 82,62,000/- by the AO. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued for levy of penalty U/s. 271D of the Act without proper satisfaction is invalid before the eyes of law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Nymish Kundum, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Rajamahendravaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/VIZ/2022[2016-7]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The core issue involved in the grounds raised by the assessee is with respect to validity of levy of penalty U/s. 271D on account of receipt of cash in relation to transfer of immovable property by the assessee attracting the provisions of section 269SS

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Viskahapatnam vs. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Producers Company Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 239/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

income on this count cannot be said to be voluntary, as it is based on the seized material. Therefore, the AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.76,02,230/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the penalty by the Ld.AO ... 239/Viz/2020 & CO No.20&21/Viz/2023 A.Y 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Producers Co.Ltd., Visakhapatnam since there is concealment of income, levy of penalty by the Ld.AO is justified. 6. Per contra, the Ld.AR argued that the assessee accepted voluntarily, the amount of Rs.19 crores for the A.Y.2011-12

Mukesh Kumar Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit

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

ITA 290/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Chaudhary Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

Further, the appellant has filed 10 grounds of appeal. The ground no.1 to 9 are interconnected to the common issue i.e. levy of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, for the sake of convenience all these grounds of appeal

Ashok Nathmal Garodia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 553/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms Neha ParanjapeFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessment year 2015–16. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified Rs.90,922/-“ 1. National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the NFAC”] erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.90 ... without appreciating that the Assessee Ashok Nathmal Garodia. has neither concealed any income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the levy of penalty of Rs.90,922/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified and the same may be deleted. 2. The NFAC failed

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mukeshkumar Somatmalji Doshi, Mumbai

ITA 4459/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Mukeshkumar Somatmalji Income Tax Officer Doshi, Ward 19(2)(2) 63/A, 1St Khumbharwada Lane, Room No.503, Bhandari Street, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Near Goel Deval, Lalgaug, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abqpd5578B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty order dated 28th March, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai, levying the penalty of ₹2,38,595/- was allowed, penalty was deleted following the order of the co-ordinate Bench in case of Poonam K Prajapati holding that when the addition is made ... addition as made on estimate basis and the assessee has not concealed any income or has disclosed inaccurate particulars which could lead to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee passed the penalty order under Section

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3013/DEL/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1997-98

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292

nature and not pressed specifically during the course of appellate proceedings. However, as all the balance grounds of appeal mentioned therein relate to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, these are taken together and discussed in the underlying paras. 5.1 It is observed further from

Shree Sai Marketing, Nagpur vs. Add. Joint. Deputy. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke
Section 271BSection 44A

according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee has violated the provisions of section 44AB of the Act and has made itself liable for levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee’s reply, which was filed in response to the notice issued ... provisions of Section 44AB of the Act. Thus, the violation of section 44AB of the Act renders the assessee liable for levy of penalty under section 271B of Shree Sai Marketing ITA no.325/Nag./2023 the Act. In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the assessee

Chiguruvada Dileep Kumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. The appellant denies itself for levy of penalty 2. of Rs. 15,95,172/- for the year under consideration. At the outset, the Appellant submits that the order passed by the learned Assessing ... rulings/judgements given by the honourable 3. judicial authorities in various cases, in so far as rejecting the contention of the appellant and levy of penalty is not in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as interpreted by the Judicial authorities. The Appellant submits that the impugned

Chiguruvada Dileepkumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 832/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. The appellant denies itself for levy of penalty 2. of Rs. 15,95,172/- for the year under consideration. At the outset, the Appellant submits that the order passed by the learned Assessing ... rulings/judgements given by the honourable 3. judicial authorities in various cases, in so far as rejecting the contention of the appellant and levy of penalty is not in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as interpreted by the Judicial authorities. The Appellant submits that the impugned

DCIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune

ITA 541/MUM/2024[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(3) V. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road 8Th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old Cgo Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca5452C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 4. The roots for the levy of Penalty lie in the assessment order framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act pursuant to search and seizure operation conducted