levy of penalty — 5,057 case laws

DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tepe Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4595/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh K. Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Supreme Court laid down the extent of burden of proof in case of a cash credit and the levy of penalty: "In this case, the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income

Shri Gulamhusen Remanbhai Selat, Veraval (Gir Somnath) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Veraval

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 309/RJT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

dated 13.10.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year ... assessee and held that the assessee has not given ‘reasonable cause’ for failure to comply with the above notices. Therefore confirmed the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act and thereby dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Morbi Circle, Morbi vs. M/S. Zealtop Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed and the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 31/Rjt/2018 With Co No.17/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2014-2015 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" D.C.I.T., M/S Zealtop Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Survey No.596, 8/A, Morbi. National Highway, Old Ghuma Road, Morbi-2. Pan: Aaacz3126B

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R

Section 131Section 143(3)

defeat the very purpose of Search/Survey operations as they fail to bring the undisclosed income to tax in a sustainable manner leave alone levy of penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 354/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.353 & 354/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward-1(1). Mohd. Umar Timber Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Mart. Floor, Ashar It Park, Near Golden Dyes Co. बिधम/ Wagle Industrial Estate, Highway Service Road, Vs. Thane- 400 604 Haridas Nagar, Thane(W)- 400 601

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair Sr. AR

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

details of purchases and the corresponding quantitative sales have not been disturbed and has been accepted, then there cannot be any case for levy of penalty on account of alleged bogus purchases. Ultimately, the AO held that at the most there could be element of suppression of gross profit

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 353/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.353 & 354/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward-1(1). Mohd. Umar Timber Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Mart. Floor, Ashar It Park, Near Golden Dyes Co. बिधम/ Wagle Industrial Estate, Highway Service Road, Vs. Thane- 400 604 Haridas Nagar, Thane(W)- 400 601

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair Sr. AR

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

details of purchases and the corresponding quantitative sales have not been disturbed and has been accepted, then there cannot be any case for levy of penalty on account of alleged bogus purchases. Ultimately, the AO held that at the most there could be element of suppression of gross profit

Love Shoppers Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/RJT/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal. Total Tax Effect 13,25,000/-”

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred as to the "CIT(A)"] erred on facts as also in law in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act at Rs. 13,25,000/- on the ground of alleged contravention of provision of section 269SS ... emergency payments during the year under consideration, and hence there existed reasonable circumstances as defined under section 273B of the Act for non-levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. However, the assessing officer held that the assessee has not been able to bring forth to any such emergency

Pushpa Jadhav, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Kalyan

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 201@Eaqcbz@2023 ¼Fu-Oa- 2011&12½ Pushpa Jadhav 2004, Clover Building, Everest World, Opp. Bayer, India, Kolshet, Thane-400 601 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Acopj6199H Cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2) ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Kalyan-421 306

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Phadke, Advocate izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri V. S. Mahajan, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Authorised Representative (AR) submits that once the returned income has been accepted by the AO without any addition, there is no question of levy of penalty. The actual rental income received by the assessee has been duly reflected in the return of income/computation of income. The rental income declared ... been made in the assessment order. Once, the AO has accepted the income returned without any addition/disallowance, there is no question of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. P a g e | 4 PUSHPA JADHAV 5. We find that the AO while passing the assessment order

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/PAT/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.49,50&51/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Patliputra Builders Limited………....….....................…..........….…… Appellant 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna. [Pan: Aaccp0629B] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…....…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shravan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [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 These Appeals Has Agitated The Levy 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 Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Submit That The Impugned Orders In All The Three Appeals Are Ex Parte Orders. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That In Fact The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Of The Notice Of Hearing Issued By The Ld. Cit(A). Moreover, The Alleged Dates Of Hearing Mentioned By The Cit(A) Were During The Covid

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in these appeals has agitated the levy 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

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/PAT/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.49,50&51/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Patliputra Builders Limited………....….....................…..........….…… Appellant 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna. [Pan: Aaccp0629B] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…....…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shravan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [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 These Appeals Has Agitated The Levy 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 Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Submit That The Impugned Orders In All The Three Appeals Are Ex Parte Orders. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That In Fact The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Of The Notice Of Hearing Issued By The Ld. Cit(A). Moreover, The Alleged Dates Of Hearing Mentioned By The Cit(A) Were During The Covid

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in these appeals has agitated the levy 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

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/PAT/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.49,50&51/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Patliputra Builders Limited………....….....................…..........….…… Appellant 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna. [Pan: Aaccp0629B] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…....…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shravan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [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 These Appeals Has Agitated The Levy 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 Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Submit That The Impugned Orders In All The Three Appeals Are Ex Parte Orders. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That In Fact The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Of The Notice Of Hearing Issued By The Ld. Cit(A). Moreover, The Alleged Dates Of Hearing Mentioned By The Cit(A) Were During The Covid

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in these appeals has agitated the levy 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

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 271 (1)(b), without appreciating that the appellant had duly responded to and complied with the notice issued ... Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4438/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 271 (1)(b), without appreciating that the appellant had duly responded to and complied with the notice issued ... Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4437/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 271 (1)(b), without appreciating that the appellant had duly responded to and complied with the notice issued ... Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4436/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 271 (1)(b), without appreciating that the appellant had duly responded to and complied with the notice issued ... Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4435/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 271 (1)(b), without appreciating that the appellant had duly responded to and complied with the notice issued ... Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4434/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 271 (1)(b), without appreciating that the appellant had duly responded to and complied with the notice issued ... Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4433/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 271 (1)(b), without appreciating that the appellant had duly responded to and complied with the notice issued ... Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government

Taj Exim International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6356/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannushri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Agarwal a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

raised the following grounds:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial proposition, Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by Ld. AO on let out property, excess claim of depreciation on Plant & Machinery and Building block of assets ... Without prejudice to above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial proposition, Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by Ld. AO on let out property, excess claim of depreciation on Plant & Machinery and Building block of assets and late

Ramabhai Kanjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2, Surat

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

ITA 110/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106 To 110/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ramabhai Kanjibhai Patel, Vs. The Dcit, At-Surajpuja, Po-Surajpura, Ta-Palanpur, Central Circle-2, Palanpur-385001. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aefpp4997J (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

assessee in response to said notice. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer was satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance of the terms of statutory notice. Therefore, Assessing Officer levied ... 272A(1)(d) of the Act are pari materia with the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing officer levied the penalty for alleged non-compliance of notice dated 21/12/2020 as levied in earlier years which we have already deleted. Therefore, considering the principle of consistency

Ramabhai Kanjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2, Surat

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

ITA 109/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106 To 110/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ramabhai Kanjibhai Patel, Vs. The Dcit, At-Surajpuja, Po-Surajpura, Ta-Palanpur, Central Circle-2, Palanpur-385001. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aefpp4997J (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

assessee in response to said notice. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer was satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance of the terms of statutory notice. Therefore, Assessing Officer levied ... 272A(1)(d) of the Act are pari materia with the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing officer levied the penalty for alleged non-compliance of notice dated 21/12/2020 as levied in earlier years which we have already deleted. Therefore, considering the principle of consistency

“levy of penalty”

Leading authorities on levy of penalty

Judgments citing levy of penalty

DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tepe Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Shri Gulamhusen Remanbhai Selat, Veraval (Gir Somnath) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Veraval

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Morbi Circle, Morbi vs. M/S. Zealtop Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Thane

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Mumbai

Love Shoppers Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Pushpa Jadhav, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Kalyan

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Taj Exim International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

Ramabhai Kanjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2, Surat

Ramabhai Kanjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2, Surat