← 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

Vasdev, Sangrur vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 422/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Anand, Advocate and Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR for Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT,DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC , Delhi. As per the Ld. CIT(A), the submission of the assessee against the levy of penalty was ambiguous and baseless as the assessee has accepted the addition of Rs. 3,03,855/- notwithstanding the fact that the same was estimated ... claim that there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee. Accordingly the findings of the AO in terms of levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 12,386/- under section 271(1)(C) were confirmed. 4. Against the said findings and the direction

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

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

ITA 389/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

furnished any inaccurate particulars nor they have offered any explanation which they can't substantiate, and hence the conditions specified for the levy of penalty has not been satisfied and therefore the penalty under section 271(1)(c) can't be levied in their case. The assessee relied ... penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition is not valid for the purpose of levy of penalty. In penalty- proceedings something more is required to be proved. There may be several considerations on which additions may be made

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

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

ITA 388/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

furnished any inaccurate particulars nor they have offered any explanation which they can't substantiate, and hence the conditions specified for the levy of penalty has not been satisfied and therefore the penalty under section 271(1)(c) can't be levied in their case. The assessee relied ... penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition is not valid for the purpose of levy of penalty. In penalty- proceedings something more is required to be proved. There may be several considerations on which additions may be made

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

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

ITA 386/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

furnished any inaccurate particulars nor they have offered any explanation which they can't substantiate, and hence the conditions specified for the levy of penalty has not been satisfied and therefore the penalty under section 271(1)(c) can't be levied in their case. The assessee relied ... penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition is not valid for the purpose of levy of penalty. In penalty- proceedings something more is required to be proved. There may be several considerations on which additions may be made

The ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

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

ITA 379/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

furnished any inaccurate particulars nor they have offered any explanation which they can't substantiate, and hence the conditions specified for the levy of penalty has not been satisfied and therefore the penalty under section 271(1)(c) can't be levied in their case. The assessee relied ... penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. What is valid for the purpose of making addition is not valid for the purpose of levy of penalty. In penalty- proceedings something more is required to be proved. There may be several considerations on which additions may be made

M/S Laxminarayan Associatesbhopal, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3(2), Bhopal

In the result, Quantum appeal is partly allowed and penalty appeal is allowed

ITA 83/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 40Section 68

Assessing Officer is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271AAC of the Act. 3. That the levy of penalty under section 271 AAC of the Act is illegal ... Tribunal.” 11. We have heard Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record. The AO levied the penalty u/s 271AAC(1) against the additions made on account of unsecured loans. We have already deleted the said addition made by the AO on account

M/S Laxminarayan Associatesbhopal, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3(2), Bhopal

In the result, Quantum appeal is partly allowed and penalty appeal is allowed

ITA 215/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 40Section 68

Assessing Officer is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271AAC of the Act. 3. That the levy of penalty under section 271 AAC of the Act is illegal ... Tribunal.” 11. We have heard Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record. The AO levied the penalty u/s 271AAC(1) against the additions made on account of unsecured loans. We have already deleted the said addition made by the AO on account

M/S Siddhula;L, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2(2) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 110/IND/2023[2011-12d]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 54B

sustaining charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B which is unjustified. (5) The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that in the case of assessee-individual, the AO received ... Page 13 of 14 M/s.Siddhulal Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(2), Bhopal ITA No. 110/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12 14. This ground challenges the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is an independent levy and cannot be a part of present

Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad vs. Rajeshri Avas Developers Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 758/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 758/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ito Rajeshri Avas Developers बनाम/ Ward -3(1)(1), Ahmedabad Private Limited Vs. A-9, Anupam Colony, Lbs Road, Opp. Chirag Diamond, Bapunagar, Gujarat 380024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr9139G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) None अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The matter relates to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of bogus purchase. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 26.03.2016 assessing

Farees Ahmed Khalil Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-23(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3742/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY.S (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri K.Gopal and Om Kandalkar,AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

assessee in Septermer, 2022 and, thereafter, the assessee came to know about the Income Tax proceedings against the assesssee including assessment and levy of penalty. Since, assessee was not residing in India he remotely from UAE co-ordinated to file appeal against the assessment order as well as against levy

Marvel Drugs Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-6(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3626/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ito 6(3)(3), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 20, Nagin Mahal, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 82 Vn Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm4655N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.R. Revenue By : Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/.2024 O R D E R Per : Sandeep Singh Karhail: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 11/08/2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2006-07, Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Dated 26/03/2013 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

alter or vary any of the Grounds of Appeal set out herein above.” 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record ... were initiated. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide penalty order dated 26/03/2013, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied a penalty of Rs.11,23,763/-. In the quantum appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the learned CIT(A), the coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide order dated

Kamal Enterprises and New Life Hospital, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Initially, learned Assessing Officer passed an order dated 13/08/2021, levying a penalty of Rs. 98,280/-. Learned Assessing Officer, however, revisited the penalty proceedings and passed an order dated 01/04/2022, levying a penalty ... also contended that there is no concealment of income and, therefore, mere disallowance of the claim will not result in levy of penalty. Lastly learned AR contended that law does not permit passing two penalty orders by the learned Assessing Officer, because with passing of the first penalty order

Sree Navaladian Finance, Namakkal vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1157/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

regards to jurisdiction in these four appeals is that the AO has initiated under which limb or charge for which the penalty was levied or penalty proceedings initiated whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income rather initiation in the assessment order ... having given such opportunity. The reliance on issue of a notice under the law as a pre-requisite requirement for initiation and levy of penalty has not been legally warranted by the law itself. The only requirement under the law is the Department has to demonstrate that the assessee been

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1156/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

regards to jurisdiction in these four appeals is that the AO has initiated under which limb or charge for which the penalty was levied or penalty proceedings initiated whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income rather initiation in the assessment order ... having given such opportunity. The reliance on issue of a notice under the law as a pre-requisite requirement for initiation and levy of penalty has not been legally warranted by the law itself. The only requirement under the law is the Department has to demonstrate that the assessee been

Sreenavaladian Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Centralcircle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1155/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

regards to jurisdiction in these four appeals is that the AO has initiated under which limb or charge for which the penalty was levied or penalty proceedings initiated whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income rather initiation in the assessment order ... having given such opportunity. The reliance on issue of a notice under the law as a pre-requisite requirement for initiation and levy of penalty has not been legally warranted by the law itself. The only requirement under the law is the Department has to demonstrate that the assessee been

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Cent Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1154/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

regards to jurisdiction in these four appeals is that the AO has initiated under which limb or charge for which the penalty was levied or penalty proceedings initiated whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income rather initiation in the assessment order ... having given such opportunity. The reliance on issue of a notice under the law as a pre-requisite requirement for initiation and levy of penalty has not been legally warranted by the law itself. The only requirement under the law is the Department has to demonstrate that the assessee been

Haresh Ghashyamdas Makhija, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 2906/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha GhindFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Rs.6,41,650/- without any variation with the returned income. The ld. A.O. vide order dated 19.01.2022 passed u/s. 271B of the Act levied a penalty of Rs.80,566/- @ 271B of the Act being 0.5% of the turnover of Rs.1,61,13,210/-. 6. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal ... been supported by the decisions of various high courts. It is observed that in the present case in hand the ld. A.O. had levied a penalty of Rs.25,000/- u/s. 271A of the Act which according to the ld. AR has been accepted and paid by the assessee

Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 2904/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha GhindFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Rs.6,41,650/- without any variation with the returned income. The ld. A.O. vide order dated 19.01.2022 passed u/s. 271B of the Act levied a penalty of Rs.80,566/- @ 271B of the Act being 0.5% of the turnover of Rs.1,61,13,210/-. 6. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal ... been supported by the decisions of various high courts. It is observed that in the present case in hand the ld. A.O. had levied a penalty of Rs.25,000/- u/s. 271A of the Act which according to the ld. AR has been accepted and paid by the assessee

Invest Smart India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 331/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Invest Smart India (P) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 2(1) Pan:Aftpg1095F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri N. Raja Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.04.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.30,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Did Not File Its Return Of Income Nor

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri N. Raja Kumar, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 68

Rs.10,000/-, the Assessing Officer was duty bound to obtain the prior approval of the JCIT/Add.CIT which he has not done. Therefore, such levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the learned CIT (A) NFAC should be cancelled. Referring to para 7.3 of the order ... Para 7 of the order which reads as under: “7. It is to be observed that AO issued only one notice and levied two penalties for non-compliance on two dates. Technically speaking, each non-compliance requires separate show-cause notice/proceeding and AO cannot levy two penalties in one single

Katyayani Jewels P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5359/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bajrang Soni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

levied in his hands. 6. The contention of the assessee did not find any favour with the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7, Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before ... brushed aside lightly and cannot be considered as concealed income of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the levy of penalty in the hands of the company. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the same. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee