← 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

Mukesh Kumar Ranka, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 98/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

terms of section 271AAB of the Act. This Tribunal in the case of Ravi Mathur vs. DCIT (supra) while considering an issue of levy of penalty under section 271AAB has held in para 4 to 9 as under :- “4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material ... assessee falls in the definition of undisclosed income as stipulated in the explanation to said section. The first question arises is whether the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is mandatory and consequential to the disclosure of income by the assessee under section

Mukesh Kumar Ranka, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 97/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

terms of section 271AAB of the Act. This Tribunal in the case of Ravi Mathur vs. DCIT (supra) while considering an issue of levy of penalty under section 271AAB has held in para 4 to 9 as under :- “4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material ... assessee falls in the definition of undisclosed income as stipulated in the explanation to said section. The first question arises is whether the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is mandatory and consequential to the disclosure of income by the assessee under section

Anju Jain, Lr Shri Sushil Jain, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 104/IND/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

terms of section 271AAB of the Act. This Tribunal in the case of Ravi Mathur vs. DCIT (supra) while considering an issue of levy of penalty under section 271AAB has held in para 4 to 9 as under :- “4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material ... assessee falls in the definition of undisclosed income as stipulated in the explanation to said section. The first question arises is whether the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is mandatory and consequential to the disclosure of income by the assessee under section

Anju Jain, Lr Sushil Jain, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 103/IND/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

terms of section 271AAB of the Act. This Tribunal in the case of Ravi Mathur vs. DCIT (supra) while considering an issue of levy of penalty under section 271AAB has held in para 4 to 9 as under :- “4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material ... assessee falls in the definition of undisclosed income as stipulated in the explanation to said section. The first question arises is whether the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is mandatory and consequential to the disclosure of income by the assessee under section

Jatin Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(2), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3885/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3885/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2009-10) Jatin Enterprises, 31, Savita Sadan, 1St Parsiwada, V.P.Road, C.P.Tank, Mumbai – 400 004. Pan: Aaafj-4667-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit-19(2),Mumbai, Matru Mandir, Income Tax Office,Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007. ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Bhende "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.A.R सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2024 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 01/09/2023, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[ In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh BhendeFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.A.R
Section 2Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 01/09/2023, for the Assessment Year 2009-10, confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[ in short ‘the Act’]. 2. Shri Rajesh Bhende appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted

Wideangle Financial Services Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 63/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.63/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Wideangle Financial Services Ltd…….…................…...……………....Appellant 33/1, 4Th Floor, R.N. 412, Marshal House, N.S. Road, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aaacw2477Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. H. Jariwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 20, 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 22.12.2023 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 Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Assessment Order To Submit That The Assessee Had Made An Expenditure Of Rs.7,00,000/- To Get Membership Of Otc Exchange Of India. The Assessee Claimed The Said Expenditure As Revenue Expenditure. However, The Assessing Officer Treated The Same

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

treated the said expenditure as capital expenditure ,but that itself, under the circumstances, is not a case of evasion of tax warranting the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The impugned penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly ordered

Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 226/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

ignoring the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such mere disallowance does not lead to levy of penalty. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied ... have levied penalty under sub-section (9) of section 270A of the Act is legally valid or not. The AO in order to levy the penalty has given the reason for doing so as under:- "The contention of the assessee to drop the penalty proceedings is rejected because the assessee

Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 225/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

ignoring the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such mere disallowance does not lead to levy of penalty. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied ... have levied penalty under sub-section (9) of section 270A of the Act is legally valid or not. The AO in order to levy the penalty has given the reason for doing so as under:- "The contention of the assessee to drop the penalty proceedings is rejected because the assessee

Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 224/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

ignoring the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such mere disallowance does not lead to levy of penalty. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied ... have levied penalty under sub-section (9) of section 270A of the Act is legally valid or not. The AO in order to levy the penalty has given the reason for doing so as under:- "The contention of the assessee to drop the penalty proceedings is rejected because the assessee

Mak Logistics(P)Ltd, Port Blair vs. DCIT, Circle 3(2), Port Blair

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

ITA 978/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.978/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mak Logistics Pvt. Ltd……..………….…................…...……………....Appellant 99, Gati Coast To Coast, Haddo Po Delanipur, Port Blair, Union Territory Of Andaman & Nicobar Island, 744102. [Pan: Aaecm2139H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2), Port Blair...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 19, 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 26.07.2023 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 Agitated Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Aforesaid Penalty Was Outcome Of The Quantum Addition Made By The Assessing Officer. That The Appeal Against The Quantum Additions Is Still Pending Before The Ld. Cit(A). That If The Quantum Additions Stand

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has agitated against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the aforesaid penalty was outcome of the quantum ... aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue relating to the levy of penalty along with the appeal of the assessee against quantum additions. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Suresh, Thanjavur vs. Commisioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1555/CHNY/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Karthick Krishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271BSection 44A

taking help from the provision of Sec.44AD, Ld. AO estimated commission of 8% and framed the assessment. At the same time, Ld. AO levied impugned penalty of Rs.1 Lacs u/s 271B for failure to get its accounts audited u/s 44AB. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which ... maintained any books of accounts and income determination is on pure estimation. Considering this fact, there would be no question of levy of penalty for alleged default u/s 44AB. This is not a fit case of levy of penalty. By deleting the same, we allow the appeal of the assessee

Wisteria Advertisement Private Limited, H vs. ITO Ward -2(3), Faridabad, C. R. Building

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3278/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3278/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

Counsel for the assessee further filed a brief synopsis stating as under: - I.T.A.No.3278/Del/2023 “1. The aforesaid appeal was filed against the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged non-compliance of notice issued

Anjali Neeraj Hardikar, Mumbai vs. DCIT.CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 29ASection 37(1)Section 37(28)Section 80G

relation to the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for the A.Y.2011-12. 2 Anjali Neeraj Hardikar 2. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs.3,24,450/- of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80GGC of Rs.10,50,000/-. 3. The brief facts are that assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80GGC

Sengoda Gounder HUF, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Salem

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

ITA 1179/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1179/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sengoda Gounder Huf, The Dy. Commissioner Of 6, Backside Of Collector’S Vs. Income Tax, Bungalow, Hasthampatti, Circle-1, Salem – 636 007. Salem. [Pan: Aayhs-3071-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Court referred in the submissions and seen that the assessee cannot be imputed with concealment of income and there was no case for levy of penalty under sec.271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that an ancestral property belongs to Sri Sengoda Gounder ... proceedings against the assessee by issuing a notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally vide order dated 12-12-2019 levied a penalty of Rs.5,16,640/- upon the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order

Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Cir-18(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1653/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(2)

unaccounted cash to the tune of Rs.1,17,33,011/- was utilized to avail this credit in the bank. Proceedings u/s 274 for levy of penalty 271(1) (c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income resulting into concealing particulars of income 31. Rs.1 ... Rs.4,69,320/- added U/s 69C is taxed at the maximum marginal rate as per provisions of Section 115BBE. Proceedings u/s 274 for levy of penalty 271(1) (c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing particulars of income on addition of the commission paid added

Sri. Panati Vikramdeva Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 121/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 44A

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since the common issue involved in these appeals is levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, they are heard together and common order is passed. ITA Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2024 Page ... ready reference. 3. In view of the above facts, I request your Honour to take a lenient and sympathetic view in respect of levying of penalty U/s. ITA Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 8 271[1][b] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and request your Honour to kindly

Sri. Panati Vikramdeva Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 120/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 44A

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since the common issue involved in these appeals is levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, they are heard together and common order is passed. ITA Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2024 Page ... ready reference. 3. In view of the above facts, I request your Honour to take a lenient and sympathetic view in respect of levying of penalty U/s. ITA Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 8 271[1][b] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and request your Honour to kindly

Neeta Breja, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 3269/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3269/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. As we have decided the appeal on the very validity of issue of notice for levy of penalty in favour of the assessee the grounds I.T.A.No.3269/Del/2023 raised by the assessee on merits are not adjudicated as it is only academic

Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3186/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar Goyal Vs. Ito Ward-3(5) 607, Railway Road, Hapur. Patel Nagar, Hapur Uttar Pradesh 245101 Pan Aatpg1790N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

reasons - (i) the reply uploaded on the ITBA on 11.11.2021 reproduced in para 5 of the appellate order had no relevance with the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of his income and not for failure to get his accounts audited ... possible leakage of revenue. However, in our view addition to the income of the assessee on account of said disallowance does not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Following guideline from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT

Rohan Vasant Kale, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1 Nashik, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 3/PUN/2024[2017-78]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2024AY 2017-78

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Mahendra BhalgatFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 144Section 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 31.10.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s.271B of the Act. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income ... Revenue on account of delay in submission of Tax Audit Report. 3 Rohan Vasant Kale Therefore, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. In the result, the appeal