“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

Lords Inn Hotels and Developers Private Limited, Andheri West vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3(1), Nariman Point

ITA 3615/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 44A

deduction for the same. 5. During the course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf of the Appellant on judicial precedents dealing with levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue that arises for consideration is whether the said judicial precedents can be applied while interpreting ... Chapter X apply.” (Emphasis Supplied) 5.1. Section 271(1) of the Act specifically provides that the 6 Assessing Officer ‘may’ direct the levy of penalty if the Assessing Officer ‘is satisfied’ that an assessee has concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, whereas Section 270A of the Act does

Allied Photographics India Limited, Churchgate vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

ITA 3540/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 274Section 32

there was neither under-reporting nor misreporting by the Appellant. The CIT(A) rejected the aforesaid contention/submission of the Appellant and confirmed levy of penalty of INR 2,07,106/- under Section 270A of the Act while dismissing the appeal vide order dated 21/09/2023. 3.3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant ... Analysis of Legal Provisions 5. During the course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf of the Appellant on judicial precedents dealing with levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue that arises for consideration is whether the said judicial precedents can be applied while interpreting

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Michael Page International Recruitment P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal and CO filed by the Revenue and Assessee respectively, stands dismissed

ITA 2661/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Michael Page Income Tax -14(1)(1), International Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, 2 North Avenue Maker Mumbai - 400020 Maxity, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aagcm8425N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hirali Desai, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 32Section 37Section 37(1)

assessment year under consideration within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 to this section” and consequently levied the penalty to the tune of Rs.76,39,190/- @ 100% of the income sought to be evaded on the additions/disallowances totaling to Rs.2 ... assessee being aggrieved, challenged the levy of penalty before the Ld. Commissioner, who by impugned order deleted the aforesaid penalty by concluding as under: “I have perused the penalty order, grounds of appeal and submission filed by the appellant and arguments made during the course of VC. I find from

Duggal & Sons Buildwell (P) Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

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

ITA 1990/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singhla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

made, the Assessing Officer held that as the turnover of the assessee exceeded the limit prescribed u/s 44AB, the assessee is liable for levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act for failure to get the accounts audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act which was confirmed

Shiv Agrevo Ltd, Kota vs. DCIT Circle-2, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 623/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Garvieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl CIT-DR

Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 274

notices issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 04.03.2020 is not valid and the same is quashed. Consequential levy of penalty is also deleted. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” Order pronounced in the open court on 29/04/2024. ¼ Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk

Jayant Metal Mfg Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6 (1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 4445/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the appeal is disposed off." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that Appellant-company did not have any business activity for last many several years due to deadlock in management arising from disputes between the two shareholder directors. For many years the Appellant-company did not file return of income. However, the income from

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 270A

levied on the Appellant vide order, dated 19/09/2022. The Appellant preferred appeal before 2 Assessment Year 2017-18 CIT(A) challenging levy of penalty. Vide order dated 01/11/2023, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the Appellant is now in appeal before us against the order ... deadlock in the management, the Appellant should have been granted to explain the prevailing circumstances and make out a case for non-levy of penalty in personal hearing. It was submitted that once request for personal hearing was made the CIT(A) was required to grant the same. Per contra

Jayant Metal Mfg Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy CIT Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4213/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

levied on the Appellant vide order, dated 19/09/2022. The Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) challenging levy of penalty. Vide order dated 05/10/2023, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the Appellant is now Assessment Year 2016-17 in appeal before us against the order ... deadlock in the management, the Appellant should have been granted to explain the prevailing circumstances and make out a case for non-levy of penalty in personal hearing. It was submitted that in any case, once request for personal hearing was made the CIT(A) was required to grant

ITO, Ward- 76(1), New Delhi vs. Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6597/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshito Vs. Turner General Ward – 76(1) Entertainment Networks New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Radisson Commercial Plaza, National Highway-8, Mahipalpur – 26, Pan No. Aaccn 3434 E New Delhi- 110 037 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manuj Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Shalini, Adv. Shri Sudip Loth, Adv. Revenue By Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh: 1. This Appeal In Ita No.6597/Del/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arises Out Of The Order By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 41, New Delhi In Appeal No. 289/16-17 Dated 16.08.2017 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld Cit(A) In Short) Against The Penalty Order U/S 271C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred 2

Section 143(3)Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)

limitation period mentioned in provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act was subject matter of interpretation in the context of levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced below:- 5 7. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior standing counsel ... Since the penalty order is held to be barred by limitation, the other grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of levy of penalty on merits need not be adjudicated into at this stage as the same would be academic in nature. 7. In the result, the appeal

Balwinder Singh, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sunam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271F

VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, sustaining the levy of penalty under section 271F of the Act pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the case ... assessee in order to declare true income and disclose the source of cash so deposited and therefore the action of the AO in levy of penalty under section 271F was held to be justified and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. Against the said findings and the direction

Orange City Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd., Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 019/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Orange City Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd. Anand Plaza-2, Hudkeshwar Road, Raja Peth Bus Stop, Nagpur-440034. Pan: Aaaao2933P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Nagpur. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1047262637(1) Dt. 14/11/2022 Of The National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Confirmed The Order Levying Penalty Passed U/S 270A Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre [‘Neac’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 246A(1)(aa)Section 250Section 270ASection 274(1)

reporting incorrect figures in ITR from the audited financial statement/report remained unshaken by any adverse findings. For the reasons in our considered view levy of penalty in the instant case was unwarranted. This view also finds support in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision ... Electric South East Asia (Hq) Pte Ltd Vs ACIT’ [WP(C) No 5111 of 2022] while dealing with the denial of immunity from levy of penalty u/s 270A vide para 6 held that; ‘the Respondents' action of denying the benefit of immunity on the ground that the penalty was initiated

Mrs. Beant Kaur Juneja, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Nagpur

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 18/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 018/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Beantkaur Avtarsingh Juneja Hp Petrol Pump, Dosar Bhavan, C. A. Road, Nagpur-440002. Pan: Aflpj2956E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 24Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271BSection 273BSection 274(1)Section 44A

NFAC’ hereinafter] for assessment year 2017-18 [‘AY’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act. 2. Tersely stated facts of the case are that; 2.1 The assessee is an individual engaged in the business

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Sanjay Prataprai Mehta, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 897/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri

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

order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), passed for Assessment Year 2014-15 deleting the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1. In the facts ... additions made by the Department in quantum proceedings vide order dated 25.07.2023 in ITA No. 509/Ahd/2018, there is no basis for sustaining levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. DCIT vs. Sanjay Prataprai Mehta Asst.Year –2014-15 - 9– 8. In our view, it is a well

Meghana Paresh Jadhav, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 10(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 573/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.573/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sandbhor

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 29.01.2024 confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under: The appellant is an individual and no regular return of income ... case, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires remission to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue of levy of penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act depending upon the outcome of the quantum appeal proceedings. I order accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee stands

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Karad Satara vs. The Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Karad Satara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 919/PUN/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the mere disallowance of claim for deduction does not entail levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products ... under : “9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the excess claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) on the ground that

Aadinath Securities Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4005/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHARI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 68Section 69A

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) for the A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. In both the appeals assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs.30,000/- levied by the ld. AO u/s. 271(1)(b) for non- compliance of 3 notices u/s.142(1). 3. The brief facts ... notices, date fixed for compliance and non-compliance made by the assessee on all such notices and therefore, the ld. AO has rightly levied the penalty for non-compliance of such notices and it is not necessary that assessment should have been completed u/s.144. 9. We have heard submissions

Aadinath Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4003/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHARI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 68Section 69A

Sumit Maheshwari, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 779/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.779/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

notice was served on the assessee and the assessee did not comply to such notice. Thus, this is not a case for levy of penalty for non-compliance. Thus, we delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Anoop Nopany, Kolata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1381/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1381/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anoop Nopany………………….…….…................…...……………....Appellant P-39, 2Nd Floor, Princep Street, Kolkata- 700072. [Pan: Abfpn3215L] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narendra Kedia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(Appeal) Nfac, Failed To Notice That Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)/263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab-Initio, Lacks Jurisdiction Since Original Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passes U/S 143(3) Was Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio. & Consequentially Any

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

appeal against the penalty order has held that if the assessment order was without jurisdiction, there was no question of levy of penalty, therefore, it was open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against levy of penalty

Chandrasekhar Nudurumati, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016- 17 dated 22.12.2023, 26.12.023 & 26.12.2023 respectively. 2. The issue in all these appeals is with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) at Rs.1,90,511/-, Rs.2,04,941/- & Rs.2 ... these assessment years confirmed the levy of penalty. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Both the parties fairly conceded that similar issue came before this Tribunal in group of cases

Chandrasekhar Nudurumati, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)