← 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

Prime Products Limited, Kanpur vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 514/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Prime Products Ltd., 87/8, Kalpi Vs. The Dy. Cit, Road, Kanpur Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur Pan: Aaacp8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer On 23.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Upholding Action Of Learned Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 94,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That On The Facts & In Law, The Notice Issued For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Dated 14/02/2020 Is Vague & Defective Since, It Does Not Specify The Limb Under Which Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Was Initiated. 4 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Offered An Explanation. The Penalty Proceedings & The Consequent Order Are Invalid & Void Ab Initio As The Same Were Initiated & Levied Solely On The Basis Of An Affidavit Without Independent Evidence Of Concealment.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE NOTICE ISSUED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) DATED 14/02/2020 IS VAGUE AND DEFECTIVE SINCE, IT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE LIMB UNDER WHICH PENALTY UNDER ... Dharmendra Textile Processors and Ors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) and MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593, he levied a penalty of Rs. 94,000/-, being 100 percent of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. Aggrieved with the said levy of penalty, the assessee went

The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. ACIT, Satara, Cir-Satara

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2154/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Renuka Arunrao Ghatge, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80P(2)(d)

initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act which was finally concluded on 24.01.2022 levying penalty of ₹ 5,30,287/-. We observe that levy of penalty is dependent on the quantum addition. We note that the addition of ₹ 36,32,266/- made by the Ld.AO has finally been deleted ... 2153/PUN/2025 and the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) has been allowed. Since the very basis of levy of penalty that the addition itself stands deleted by this Tribunal, there remains no legs to stand for the impugned penalty. We therefore set aside the impugned order

Amit Singh, Chandigarh vs. Addl.CIT-Range-5, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 238/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Chauhan Singh (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

these two appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E. The impugned penalties have been levied on similar facts. The appeals arises out of separate orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] both ... violation of Sec.269SS and 269T and made reference to specified authority for levy of impugned penalties for such violations. Though the assessee opposed levy of penalty by drawing attention to factual matrix, Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-5 Chandigarh levied penalty of Rs.37.47 Lacs u/s 271D for acceptance of loans

Amit Singh, Chandigarh vs. Addl.CIT-Range-5, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 237/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Chauhan Singh (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

these two appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E. The impugned penalties have been levied on similar facts. The appeals arises out of separate orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] both ... violation of Sec.269SS and 269T and made reference to specified authority for levy of impugned penalties for such violations. Though the assessee opposed levy of penalty by drawing attention to factual matrix, Ld. Addl. CIT, Range-5 Chandigarh levied penalty of Rs.37.47 Lacs u/s 271D for acceptance of loans

Damyanti Atul Shah, King Circle vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1) Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 5891/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ryan Saldhana,ARFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Thus, in the absence of any compliance, it was concluded that the assessee had nothing to submit with respect to levy of penalty Accordingly, minimum penalty of Rs.33,11,220/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied. 4. The subsequent appeal before the Id.CIT(A) was filed with

Rajnesh Kumar, Sitapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sitapur

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

aside the assessment order and restored the matter back to the file of the AO for framing the assessment afresh. The foundation of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was the impugned addition since the assessment has been set aside in quantum proceedings. Accordingly ... aside the penalty order and restore the issue of levy of penalty to the file of the AO to be decided afresh in accordance with law. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Now, coming to the assesse’s appeal in ITA. No.304/LKW/2025 (Penalty appeal

Rajnesh Kumar, Sitapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sitapur

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

aside the assessment order and restored the matter back to the file of the AO for framing the assessment afresh. The foundation of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was the impugned addition since the assessment has been set aside in quantum proceedings. Accordingly ... aside the penalty order and restore the issue of levy of penalty to the file of the AO to be decided afresh in accordance with law. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Now, coming to the assesse’s appeal in ITA. No.304/LKW/2025 (Penalty appeal

Rajnesh Kumar, Sitapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sitapur

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

aside the assessment order and restored the matter back to the file of the AO for framing the assessment afresh. The foundation of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was the impugned addition since the assessment has been set aside in quantum proceedings. Accordingly ... aside the penalty order and restore the issue of levy of penalty to the file of the AO to be decided afresh in accordance with law. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Now, coming to the assesse’s appeal in ITA. No.304/LKW/2025 (Penalty appeal

Rajnesh Kumar, Sitapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sitapur

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

aside the assessment order and restored the matter back to the file of the AO for framing the assessment afresh. The foundation of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was the impugned addition since the assessment has been set aside in quantum proceedings. Accordingly ... aside the penalty order and restore the issue of levy of penalty to the file of the AO to be decided afresh in accordance with law. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Now, coming to the assesse’s appeal in ITA. No.304/LKW/2025 (Penalty appeal

Premilaben Bhavuji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward - 3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1944/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1943 & 1944/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Premilaben Bhavuji Thakor The Ito बनाम/ A/67, Dwarkapuri Mafalipur Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Dholka Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmdabad – 382 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aynpt 8295 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1944/Ahd/2025 for AY 2016-17 5. Now coming to the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1944/Ahd/2025 relating to levy of penalty. Since I have already set aside the matter relating to the quantum addition to the file of the AO for de novo assessment, therefore

Premilaben Bhavuji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward - 3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1943/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1943 & 1944/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Premilaben Bhavuji Thakor The Ito बनाम/ A/67, Dwarkapuri Mafalipur Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Dholka Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmdabad – 382 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aynpt 8295 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1944/Ahd/2025 for AY 2016-17 5. Now coming to the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1944/Ahd/2025 relating to levy of penalty. Since I have already set aside the matter relating to the quantum addition to the file of the AO for de novo assessment, therefore

Sreedevi Voram, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, ITA.No.1474/Hyd

ITA 1474/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1473 & 1474/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Sreedevi Voram, The Income Tax Officer, Hanamkonda–506 202. Vs. Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal, Telangana. Telangana. Pan Acopv2435L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Sankar Pandi P. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi P. Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 272A(1)(d)

default on the part of the assessee in compliance to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has accordingly levied the penalty for non-compliance of the notices issued u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act @ Rs.10,000/- for each default. He has relied upon ... Tribunal in the case of Vivimed Labs Limited, Bidar vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad (supra) has decided the issue of levy of penalty u/sec.271B of the Act in Para-10 as under: “10. Having said so, let us come back to the explanation of the assessee

Sreedevi Voram, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, ITA.No.1474/Hyd

ITA 1473/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1473 & 1474/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Sreedevi Voram, The Income Tax Officer, Hanamkonda–506 202. Vs. Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal, Telangana. Telangana. Pan Acopv2435L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Sankar Pandi P. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi P. Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 272A(1)(d)

default on the part of the assessee in compliance to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has accordingly levied the penalty for non-compliance of the notices issued u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act @ Rs.10,000/- for each default. He has relied upon ... Tribunal in the case of Vivimed Labs Limited, Bidar vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad (supra) has decided the issue of levy of penalty u/sec.271B of the Act in Para-10 as under: “10. Having said so, let us come back to the explanation of the assessee

Reliable Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Thane

ITA 4812/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the Learned CIT(A). However, the

For Appellant: Ms. Sakina AmreliwalaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

against the Assessment Order, dated 10/12/2019, in respect of quantum additions made for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The present appeal pertains to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act pursuant to the additions made by the Assessing Officer vide the aforesaid Assessment Order, dated 10/12/2019 ... above, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned Order, dated 28/05/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the applications seeking condonation of delay and the appeal afresh

Reliable Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the Assessee is allowed and all the other

ITA 4811/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Sakina AmreliwalaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

against the Assessment Order, dated 10/12/2019, in respect of quantum additions made for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The present appeal pertains to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act pursuant to the additions made by the Assessing Officer vide the aforesaid Assessment Order, dated 10/12/2019 ... above, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned Order, dated 28/05/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the applications seeking condonation of delay and the appeal afresh

Mohd Javed, 736, Gali Fazal Pura, Sui Walan, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 48(1), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed and

ITA 1312/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271BSection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

assessee was found to be a commission agent and earning margins as prescribed by the Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation making the levy of penalty not sustainable in law. P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 1311 & 1312/Del/2025 Mohd Javed (AY: 2017-18) 4. The Penalties were imposed in the background

Mohd Javed, 736, Gali Fazal Pura, Suiwalan, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 48(1), Delhi, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed and

ITA 1311/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271BSection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

assessee was found to be a commission agent and earning margins as prescribed by the Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation making the levy of penalty not sustainable in law. Page 3 ITA Nos. 1311 & 1312/Del/2025 Mohd Javed (AY: 2017-18) 4. The Penalties were imposed in the background of allegation that

Unique Insurance Services, Punjab vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, Punjab

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1149/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)

Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19 to 2020-21 have identical facts and issues i.e., confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 270A. The facts leading to levy of penalty on the assessee are identical. First, I take up appeal for AY 2018-19 which arises ... 270A for Rs.5,46,590/- vide order dated 25-09-2024. 2. The Ld. AR advance arguments to contend that levy of penalty is not automatic. The partner of the firm was not present in India due to health issues and the firm did not undertake any new insurance business

Unique Insurance Services, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, Punjab

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1148/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)

Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19 to 2020-21 have identical facts and issues i.e., confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 270A. The facts leading to levy of penalty on the assessee are identical. First, I take up appeal for AY 2018-19 which arises ... 270A for Rs.5,46,590/- vide order dated 25-09-2024. 2. The Ld. AR advance arguments to contend that levy of penalty is not automatic. The partner of the firm was not present in India due to health issues and the firm did not undertake any new insurance business

Unique Insurance Services, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, Punjab

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1147/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)

Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19 to 2020-21 have identical facts and issues i.e., confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 270A. The facts leading to levy of penalty on the assessee are identical. First, I take up appeal for AY 2018-19 which arises ... 270A for Rs.5,46,590/- vide order dated 25-09-2024. 2. The Ld. AR advance arguments to contend that levy of penalty is not automatic. The partner of the firm was not present in India due to health issues and the firm did not undertake any new insurance business