“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

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1076/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

against the addition cannot be a ground for imposing penalty. We find that this cannot at all lead to a conclusion that the levy of penalty is automatic when addition is not appealed against or for that matter it is sustained. There can be many reasons due to which

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1075/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1074/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1073/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Smt Kanta Rani W/O Shri Madan Lal, Shahkot vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range, Jalandhar

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 38/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)

against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana dated 25.11.2022 in respect of AY 2013-14 challenging therein levy of penalty of 2 I.T.A. No. 38/Asr/2023 Kanta Rani v. Jt. CIT Rs.27,400/- u/s 272A(2)(c) for non-compliance of notice issued ... limited to the period excluding the Covid period exempted by the Apex Court is justified. Accordingly, AO is directed to levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) for the period of 30.07.2019 to 14.04.2020, in the light of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment delivered on miscellaneous application

Shri Kuldip Singh S/O Shri Parkash Singh, Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahar

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

ITA 374/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar dated 28.12.2018 in respect of AY 2010-11 challenging therein levy of penalty u/s 2 I.T.A. No. 374/Asr/2019 Kuldip Singh v. ITO 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash deposit ... Accordingly, we hold that the order of ld. CIT(A) is infirm and perverse to the facts on the record in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In the above view, we accept the grievance of the assessee as genuine considering the peculiar

Hind Tradex Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6859/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Hind Tradex Ltd., Vs Acit, C/O S.B. Garg & Co., Cas, Circle-11(2), 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacch6542B

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms Maimun Alam, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271F

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271F of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available ... does not have jurisdiction over the assessee in view of the reasons stated above. Hence, we have no hesitation in cancelling the levy of penalty in the facts and circumstances of the instant case for want of valid jurisdiction. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Space Centre Employees Co-Op Society Ltd, Trivandrum vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the Appeal and Stay Petition of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 89/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 89/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Space Centre Employees बनाम/ Ito, Ward-2(1), Co-Operative Society Ltd. Trivandrum. Vs. No. T1388 Office Building, Isro Post, Veli, Thiruvananthapurm- 695201. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Sp. No. 20/Coch/2023 Arising Out Of Ita. No.89/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Space Centre Employees बनाम/ Ito, Ward-2(1), Co-Operative Society Ltd. Trivandrum. Vs. No. T1388 Office Building, Isro Post, Veli, Thiruvananthapurm- 695201. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaap1047R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santhosh P Abraham Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh P AbrahamFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)

Section 271BSection 44Section 44A

assessing Officer. | am of the considered opinion that non production of audit report in the prescribed format can be a reason for levying of penalty u/s 271B of the act and the appellant has not given explanation regarding the reasonable cause for not filling the audit report within the prescribed ... assessee is before us. At the outset, the Ld. DR for the department brought to our notice that the issue (levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act) is covered against the assessee by order of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Peroorkkada Services Co-operative

Thattantavita Asharaf, Vadakara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 900/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 900/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Thattantavita Asharaf बनाम/ Ito, Ward-2(2) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Thattantavita House, P.O, Vs. Thuneri, Vadakara, North Block, Mananchira, Kozhikode District-673514. Kozhikode-673001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aivpa7829G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Imposition Of Penalty U/S 271F Of The Income Tax Act, 1969 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On The Ground Of Failure To Furnish Return Of Income (Roi) As Required U/S 139(1) Or Proviso To That Sub-Section. In This Case, The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Belatedly On 28.03.2013 Reflecting An Income Of Rs.3,72,410/- Whereas As Per Section 139(1) Of The Act Assessee Was To File The Return Of Income On 31.07.2011 (And U/S 139(4) By 31.03.2012). 3. The Ao Before Imposing The Penalty Of Rs.5000/- U/S 271F Of The Act Had Issued Notice Dated 21.12.2018 & After Giving Opportunity To Assessee Has Imposed Penalty On 12.03.2019. 2 A.Ys. 2012-12 Thattantavita Asharaf

For Appellant: Shri R. KrishnanFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271FSection 273B

nonce issued after a lapse of 6 years has to be considered as time barred notice. In this view of the matter, the levy of penalty is legally invalid. Even in cases where no limitation is prescribed under the Act, a reasonable time limit has to be understood ... time; and Ld AR read out section 271F of the Act which has given discretionary power to AO to levy or not to levy the penalty by using the word ‘may’ and not ‘shall’. According to Ld. AR, the since the assessee has claimed refund while filing belated return

Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti Tonk, Madhav Kunj, Madhyamik Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Yag Ke Balaji, Tonk vs. DCIT(E), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271BSection 44A

wherein the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal. ‘’The ld.CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in the levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Act for not conducting the audit u/s 44AB of (wrongly mentioned u/s 2 BHARTIYA SHIKSHA PRACHAR ... against this order the appeal of the assessee is still pending. Since the AO has initiated penalty proceedings for levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act therefore, the assessee had not got its accounts audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted

Murliwala Agrotech Private Limited, Rajasthan vs. DCIT Circle-14, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Murliwala Agrotech Private Limited, Vs Dcit, G-20-245, Ricco Industrial Area, Circle-14, Gudli Udaipur, Delhi. Rajasthan – 313024. Pan: Aaccm0796Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Susheel Kumar, Ca & Ms Archana Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.609/Del/2022 For Ay 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.10255/19-20 Dated 10.12.2021 Against The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.06.2019 Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Udaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri Susheel Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

Mini Tradex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8029/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Mini Tradex Private Limited, Vs Ito, C/O Rohit Tiwari, Ward-16(4), 8024, Ats Greens Paradiso, New Delhi. Chi Iv, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201310. Pan: Aagcm0239E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.8029/Del/2019 For Ay 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-6/10103/18-19 Dated 07.05.2019 Against The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 18.06.2018 Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-16(4), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Ms Tanya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Ashwin Liladhar Shah, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 44/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ashwin Liladhar Shah National Faceless Appeal Centre C/O. D. C. Bothara & Co. Delhi Llp (Ca) (Formerly As D. C. Bothara & Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Vs. Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: 02.03.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271F

pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2012-13. 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is the levy of penalty u/s. 271F of the Act amounting to Rs.5,000/-. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the legal profession ... having failed to comply with the provision of section 139(1)/139(4) of the Act and vide order dated 11.11.2021, levied a penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the ground that the assessee has not substantiated his failure to file his return with reasonable cause. 3. The assessee

Sushila Goyal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 22(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3012/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargsushila Goyal Vs. Ito Flat No.4, Rr Apartments Ward – 22(3), 3-4, Mangalpuri, Mehrauli New Delhi New Delhi – 110 030 Pan No. Ajspg 2559 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Gandhi, C.A. Revenue By Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023

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

Before us, Learned AR submitted that though the assessee has raised various grounds but the sole controversy is with respect to the levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Before us, Learned AR submitted that during the year under consideration, assessee had taken loans and advances ... have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that during the year under consideration, assessee had taken aggregate loans

I.G.International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Central Circle- 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 123/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.123/मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2015-16) I.G. International Pvt. Ltd. 802, 8Th Floor, Akshar Bluechip Building, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400 705. Pan: Aacci-2508-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit – Central Circle – 1(3), 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/ Shri Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri V.S.Mahajan, Sr. A.R सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/ Shri Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: Shri V.S.Mahajan, Sr. A.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

Orders of authorities below examined. A perusal of the assessment order dated 26/12/2017 would show that the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice ... which penalty is to be levied continued to be there in the mind of Assessing Officer right through from recording of satisfaction to levy of penalty. In penal proceedings there is no scope of vagueness. The assessee against whom penalty proceedings are initiated has to be made aware in absolute

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 34/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC 3. In ITA Nos. 33 & 34/Asr/2023: The appellant has raised common grounds of appeal in respect of confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for noncompliance of notices. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that ... 34/Asr/2023 12. On identical facts, in these two appeals, the appellant has challenged the CIT(A)’s orders in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each, on account of non-compliance to notice

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 33/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 32/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 31/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

Vineet Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 50(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6258/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. D.R.; &

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

compliance of the above notices even assuming they were served. In the circumstances we hold that this not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed