← 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

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 217/RPR/2022[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jul 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.216, 217 & 218/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96) Sh. Santosh Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer-1(1), Opp. P.N. Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Bhilai Durg Pan No. : Afypj6194D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Sh. R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271Section 271ASection 44A

assessee for non-prosecution. Dissatisfied with the findings of the learned CIT(A), now the assessee is before us to agitate that the levy of penalty under section 271A by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is arbitrary and not justified. 4. We have heard the Authorized ... 218/RPR/2022 are also remitted back to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the issue pertaining to levy of penalty under section 271A. 5. In the result, all the three appeals, i.e., ITA Nos. 216, 217 & 218/RPR/2022 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in terms

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 216/RPR/2022[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jul 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.216, 217 & 218/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96) Sh. Santosh Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer-1(1), Opp. P.N. Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Bhilai Durg Pan No. : Afypj6194D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Sh. R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271Section 271ASection 44A

assessee for non-prosecution. Dissatisfied with the findings of the learned CIT(A), now the assessee is before us to agitate that the levy of penalty under section 271A by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is arbitrary and not justified. 4. We have heard the Authorized ... 218/RPR/2022 are also remitted back to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the issue pertaining to levy of penalty under section 271A. 5. In the result, all the three appeals, i.e., ITA Nos. 216, 217 & 218/RPR/2022 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in terms

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 366/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

that the provisions of section 271D & 271E are attracted for violation of provision of section 269SS and 269TT of the Act respectively. The levy of penalty under these Page 3 of 9 ITA No.364 to 366/Ind/2022 Umakant Sharma Page 4 of 9 provisions is not depending on the outcome ... which the immunity granted under section 245H remained in force; and (iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded.]]” 9. The limitation for passing the order imposing penalty under chapter

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 365/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

that the provisions of section 271D & 271E are attracted for violation of provision of section 269SS and 269TT of the Act respectively. The levy of penalty under these Page 3 of 9 ITA No.364 to 366/Ind/2022 Umakant Sharma Page 4 of 9 provisions is not depending on the outcome ... which the immunity granted under section 245H remained in force; and (iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded.]]” 9. The limitation for passing the order imposing penalty under chapter

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 364/IND/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

that the provisions of section 271D & 271E are attracted for violation of provision of section 269SS and 269TT of the Act respectively. The levy of penalty under these Page 3 of 9 ITA No.364 to 366/Ind/2022 Umakant Sharma Page 4 of 9 provisions is not depending on the outcome ... which the immunity granted under section 245H remained in force; and (iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded.]]” 9. The limitation for passing the order imposing penalty under chapter

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 210/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &
Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 274

separately.” 4.2 As per the above satisfaction the penalty proceeding was started and the finally vide order dated 30.03.2022 the assessing officer has levied the penalty of Rs. 2,19,00,000/- being the 60 % of the undisclosed income of Rs. 3,65,00,000/-. The relevant finding ... proceeding were not initiated the income would not be disclosed by the assessee. As the assessee has declared income after the search the levy of penalty u/s. 271AAB is automatic. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee against the appeal filed by the revenue and in response to cross objection

Balkrishna Dhondiram Thorwat, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-27(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1350/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Samdani , Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(d)

however found not acceptable on the reason that the Assessee has not furnished any supporting documents/evidences to prove the same. The AO ultimately levied the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- for each non- compliance). 6. The Ld. Commissioner more or less on the same reasoning affirmed ... levy of penalty. 7. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that the notices dated 11.11.2021 and 27.12.2021 were sent to the Assessee on its e- mail during the Covid-19 period which remained un-complied with. It is a fact

Neel Controls, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Parag Modi, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

income by debiting bogus purchases in his Profit & Loss A/c. This is clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO consequently levied the penalty of Rs. 1,19,940/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded under section ... under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and ultimately levied the penalty against the Assessee for deliberately concealment of its income and due to negligence to furnish correct & accurate particulars about the nature of income

Balkrishna Dhondiram Thorwat, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-27(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1093/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Samdani , Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(d)

however found not acceptable on the reason that the Assessee has not furnished any supporting documents/evidences to prove the same. The AO ultimately levied the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- for each non- compliance). 6. The Ld. Commissioner more or less on the same reasoning affirmed ... levy of penalty. 7. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that the notices dated 11.11.2021 and 27.12.2021 were sent to the Assessee on its e- mail during the Covid-19 period which remained un-complied with. It is a fact

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range Moga, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

lakh in cash from M/s Jaideep Forex Pvt. Ltd. in which he has been one of the director, having 25% of share levied the Penalty u/s 269SS and 269TT of the Income Tax Act, 1961 6. The assesse being aggrieved with the Penalty Order, went in appeal before ... plea to the penalty proceedings the circumstances and which are reasonable and genuineness of the transaction, of Rs. 20.00 Lacs. In these circumstances levy of penalty u/s 271D is not Justified. The Ignorance of law is a reasonable cause as required u/s 273B to justify deletion of a penalty

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre, Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

lakh in cash from M/s Jaideep Forex Pvt. Ltd. in which he has been one of the director, having 25% of share levied the Penalty u/s 269SS and 269TT of the Income Tax Act, 1961 6. The assesse being aggrieved with the Penalty Order, went in appeal before ... plea to the penalty proceedings the circumstances and which are reasonable and genuineness of the transaction, of Rs. 20.00 Lacs. In these circumstances levy of penalty u/s 271D is not Justified. The Ignorance of law is a reasonable cause as required u/s 273B to justify deletion of a penalty

JCIT, Special Range, Panaji vs. M/S Wallace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

ITA 290/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V RaghavanFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Products [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein their lordships’ have settled the law that each and every disallowance/addition does not lead to automatic levy of penalty. We thus find no reason to reverse the CIT(A)'s action deleting the impugned penalty. This Revenue’s latter appeal ITA.No.290/PAN./2019

JCIT, Special Range, Panaji vs. M/S Wallace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

ITA 289/PAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V RaghavanFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Products [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein their lordships’ have settled the law that each and every disallowance/addition does not lead to automatic levy of penalty. We thus find no reason to reverse the CIT(A)'s action deleting the impugned penalty. This Revenue’s latter appeal ITA.No.290/PAN./2019

Aruna Tiwari, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Mrs. Meena Mangilal Sharma ( Wife and Legal Heir of Late Mr. Mangilal C. Sharma), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 30(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2016-17
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 271FSection 273B

aforesaid appeal has been filed by NFAC Delhi in relation to the penalty levied u/s.271F for A.Y.2016-17. 2. Assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs.5000/- for delay in filing of return of income u/s. 139(1). 2 Mrs. Meena Mangilal Sharma (Wife and Legal Heir of Late Shri

Milan Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (5), Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

passed by the learned lower authorities are bad in law and bad in facts. 2. The learned lower authorities have grossly erred in levying / confirmity penalty u/s 271 (1) (b) of the I.T.Act 1961 at Rs. 10,000/- Reasons assigned for imposition of impugned penalty are wrong and contrary ... raise any additional or alternative ground on or before hearing of appeal.” 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record

Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vegesna, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vs. National E-Assesment Centre, Vegesna Delhi 10-50-2, Lazarus Bangalow (Dcit/Acit Waltair Main Road Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam) [Pan : Aagts9608E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043814974(1) Dated 12.07.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 14.02.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

received by the assessee company from “R” Ltd., by bringing such loans and advances under the purview of section 2(22)(e). While levying the penalty, the deeming provisons can be applied to a limited extent and instant case was concerned with the imposition of penalty under section ... vien loan / advance to the assessee-company. In view of the above, it was not a fit case for levy of penalty under secton 271(1)(c) in respect of loans received by the assessee company from “R” Ltd. which was brought to tax not by invoking the deeming provisions

Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 190/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit ShethFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 148

filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-2,Bhubaneswar dated 30.3.2023 in Appeal No.Cuttack/10031/2017- 18 confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271 of the Act in respect of addition of Rs.2,45,066/- treated as undisclosed income and Rs.1,50,000/- representing the interest ... proceedings by the AO is improper and illegal as notice being bad-in-law and charged against the assessee being ambiguous. The levy of penalty is bad-in-law as it did not specify under which limb of Sec.271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether

Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 189/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit ShethFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 148

filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-2,Bhubaneswar dated 30.3.2023 in Appeal No.Cuttack/10031/2017- 18 confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271 of the Act in respect of addition of Rs.2,45,066/- treated as undisclosed income and Rs.1,50,000/- representing the interest ... proceedings by the AO is improper and illegal as notice being bad-in-law and charged against the assessee being ambiguous. The levy of penalty is bad-in-law as it did not specify under which limb of Sec.271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether

Mr Bimal H. Kiri, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1337/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) for A.Y. 2011-12 under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 26th September, 2014, levying the penalty of ₹60,000/- was confirmed. 02. The fact of the case shows that the assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income on 29th ... Officer recorded that the assessee has no explanation to offer for non- compliance of notices. Accordingly, for six occasions of non- compliance, he levied of penalty of ₹60,000/-, being ₹10,000/- for each non-compliance by order under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act on 26th September