“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

Pijush Kanti Bhunia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), Midnapore

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 328/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.327&328/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Pijush Kanti Bhunia….……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Agrpb9773C] Vs. Ito, Ward-39(1), Midnapore……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 08, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Assessee’S Appeal Relating To Quantum Addition & Second Is Penalty Addition. 2. Ita No.327/Kol/2024 - The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Recorded Reasons To Believe Are Invalid & Improper & As Such, The Reassessment Framed Vide Order Dated19.12.2019 Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 271(1)(c)

captioned are the two appeals preferred by the assessee, one is pertaining to the quantum addition and the other is deleting to the levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). First, we take assessee’s appeal relating to quantum ... computation of capital gains or business income as the case may be. 6. ITA No.328/Kol/2023 – In this appeal, the assessee has contested the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Since, we have deleted the quantum additions, therefore, the very basis of which the impugned penalty

Pijush Kanti Bhunia, Midnapur vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), Midnapore

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 327/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2016-17

Section 271(1)(c)

Sudama Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-67(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2525/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeksudama Sharma, Vs. Ito, Ward 67 (1), Ipso Legal H-35, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Jangpura Extension, Delhi – 110 014. (Pan : Bfops9326F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dishant Sethi, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Order : .05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 27.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.21,000/- Made By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271D R.W.S. 269Ss Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dishant Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

sustaining the addition of Rs.21,000/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271D r.w.s. 269SS of the Act. 2 2. That the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act is bad in law in as much as the appellant had a reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B ... facts relating to levy of penalty are duly captured from the assessee’s submissions before the ld. CIT (A) as under :- Assessee has sold property LIG Flat No.434, Third Floor, Pocket B, Lok Nayak Puram, New Delhi to Shri Binay Kumar Gupta for a total sale consideration of Rs.15

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263

Dhiraj Suri vs ACIT 98 lTD 87 (Del). In the said case, appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal against the levy of penalty. In the appeal challenging the penalty order, the assessee challenged the validity of block assessment order which had determined the tax liability ... therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation

Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 918/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.918/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sharad Bhaskarrao The Income Tax Officer, Gaikwad, V Nashik. T No.1, Vanai Apartment, S Gangapur Road, Behind Kulswamini Apartment, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Assessee By Revenue By Shri Sourabho Nayak – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 02.05.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.02.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A]

Section 133ASection 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

penalty u/s 270A of Rs.78,146/- on the ground that the assesses has furnish inaccurate particulars of Income without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned A.O. failed to appreciate that before the A.O., the assesses had duly explained that reporting ... form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesses and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesses was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned

Dr Nirmalkumar Phadkule Pratishthan, Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1321/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1321/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dr.Nirmalkumar Phadkule The Income Tax Pratishthan, V Officer, Solapur. S No.6039, Dr.Nirmalkumar S Phadkule Sabhagruh, Sidheshwar Peth, Near Sidheshwar Temple, Solapur – 413001. Pan: Aabtd2883M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 31.10.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Dr.Nirmalkumar Phadkule Pratishthan [A]

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 148Section 156Section 207Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 27l

advance tax due on it income. The appellant pleads that the CIT (Appeals) order is factually and legally incorrect and that the levy of penalty by the AO ought to have been deleted. 2 Dr.Nirmalkumar Phadkule Pratishthan [A] 5. The appellant pleads for directions allowing the appeal and craves leave ... Penalty notice u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act for non-filling of return of income withing the statutory time limit. The AO levied the penalty u/s.272A(2)(e) of the Act. Assessee filed appeal against the Penalty order before the Ld.CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal

Sri Sanat Kumar Das, Kolkata vs. DCIT, (I.T.), Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 202/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 90Section 90(2)

I.T.A. No.: 202/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Sanat Kumar Das. 4. Admittedly, the impugned order of penalty was passed on 30.06.2017 levying the penalty on the entire amount of Rs. 16,08,681/-, being the amount shown as not taxable as per the revised return. It is pertinent ... express any opinion regarding the maintainability of notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which led to the levy of penalty in the impugned order. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court

Bbr (India) Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 468/BANG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessmentyear:2009-10

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

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

that point of time, assessee had not filed any appeal against the quantum order dated 29.9.2021. Therefore, the ld. AO had confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act by an order dated 11.1.2022. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC ... considering the letter and other documents filed on 18.1.2024, decided the appeal ex-parte and considered the penalty issue on merits and confirmed levy of penalty by his order dated 27.1.2024. The assessee now prefers this appeal against the above order of NFAC. 3. The Learned AR for the assessee

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai., Pratishtha Bhavan vs. Arun Subrahmanyam, Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 2694/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270A

notice u/s. 142(1), the appellant cannot be said to have presented mis- representation or suppression of facts, making him liable for levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete penalty of Rs.50,48,116/- being 200% of the amount of tax sought ... argued on the legal issue related to the defective issuance of notice and in penalty order, the proper reason is not mentioned for levying of penalty amount to Rs.50,48,116/-. The copy of notice U/s 270A/274 is annexed in APB page 10. The impugned notice is reproduced as below

Gurjant Singh, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. K.Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 44ASection 68

detailed reply on 03.03.2023 contending that ld. PCIT cannot exercise the power u/s 263 of the Act to direct the ld. AO to levy of penalty or modify the penalty ld. PCIT considering the provisions of section 263 and considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court ... WHEN ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND WHEREBY DIRECTION GIVEN FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271AAC MAY PLEASE BE DECLARED AS ILLEGAL 1. That the appellant is engaged in doing Trading activity of food grains, cereals, pulses

Mr Homi R. Cooper, Mumbai Suburban vs. Assistant Commissioner on Income Tax, Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 3929/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17. 2. Since in both appeals, the assessee is challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which arises out of a similar factual matrix, Mr. Homi R. Cooper. ITA no. 3929/Mum/2023 therefore these appeals were heard together ... No.3928/Mum./2023 Assessee’s appeal- A.Y. 2014-15 3. The only grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: For the year under

Mr Homi R. Cooper, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 3928/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1969/DEL/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

statement of facts. Without Prejudice 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') without appreciating that the penalty order dated 27.06.2019, passed by the assessing officer was illegal

Umanath Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Delhi dated 25.01.2019. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That the Income Tax officer have erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 70,68,600/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the levy of penalty confirmed

Sewa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4067/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty on an adhoc addition. 4. We have heard the ld. DR and based on materials available on record. The return of income for the Asst

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Chennai vs. Commissioner Appeals Nafac, Nafac

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

ITA 1494/CHNY/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

order dated 31.10.2021. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of disallowance made u/s.35(2AB) of the Act by DSIR ... particulars of income. The assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the tune of Rs.1,30,08,057/-. “ Aggrieved against the levy of penalty by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by observing in para 5.3 & 5.5 as under

Amudha Raghothaman, Ullagaram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre

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

ITA 1453/CHNY/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1453/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. Amudha Raghothaman, The Asst. Commissioner- No.14/4, Kariyan Ponnan Street, Of Income Tax, Venkatesa Nagar, Ullagaram, Non-Corporate Range-22, Chennai-600 091. Tambaram. [Pan: Afvpa 2515 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr.M.Sathya Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

diligent and to file written ITA No.1453/Chny/2023 for AY 2016-17 Amudha Raghothaman :: 3 :: submissions/documents to substantiate its contentions against the levy of penalty if advised to do so. The Ld.CIT(A) to pass reasoned order while disposing of the appeal of the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal filed

Bright Singh Chelladurai, Nagercoil vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Bright Singh Chelladurai, The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Nanthanial Street, Ward-1, Nagercoil, Tirunelveli. Kanyakumari-629 001. [Pan: Atvpb 0028 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev MenonFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 144Section 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

High Courts in favour of the assessee [that once the AO has levied penalty u/s.271A of the Act, he should not levy again penalty u/s.271B of the Act] as well as the decisions in favour of the Revenue. In such a scenario, according to the Ld.AR, applying the law laid ... lower authorities. Similar are the facts in all these 16 appeals, hence taking a consistent view, all these 17 appeals relating to levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act are allowed in favour of the assessee. 5. The Ld.AR also drew our attention to the decision

Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc, United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4236/MUM/2023[AY 2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blesaint Gobain Abrasives Inc V. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Income-Tax (International Chartered Accountants Taxation), Circle - 4(2)(1) Esplanade House, 29 Room No. 1708, 17Th Floor Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort Air India Building Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001 Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 Pan: Aaics4348A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Akram Khan & Shri Jinit Shah Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 92E

A.Y.2011-12. Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271BA of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) amounting to ₹.1,00,000/-. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case ... 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 ₹.1,00,000/-. Page

Gangoli Ramesh Shenoy, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-8, Mumbai

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

ITA 4159/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Jigna Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and vide penalty order dated 05.03.2020 ultimately levied the penalty to the tune of Rs.3,29,578/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs.10 ... been credited to their loan accounts. Subsequently, the companies have returned back interest income in their profit and loss accounts and therefore levy of penalty on an income which has, in fact, not received by the assessee till date and not likely to be received and for which