← 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

Rajnish Talwar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 5729/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 271(1)(c)

ORDER PER BENCH, These appeals by the assessee against the common order of the Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi, dated 07.06.2019, sustaining levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, in these cases, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this ITAT

Rajnish Talwar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 5728/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 271(1)(c)

ORDER PER BENCH, These appeals by the assessee against the common order of the Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi, dated 07.06.2019, sustaining levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, in these cases, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this ITAT

Samrajyam Kondru, Krishna District vs. JCIT, Range-1, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Samrajyam Kondru Vs. Jcit, Range-1 20-130 Tb Road Vijayawada Ramannapeta Bus Stop Nandigama Post & Mandal Krishna Dist [Pan : Bfmpk8467H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Prasad Talluri, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Prasad TalluriFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

explanation to the penalty notice, the assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS for accepting the cash more than the prescribed limits. Hence, levied 100% penalty of Rs.28,57,000/-. 3. On being aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before ... ought not to have confirmed the order of the penalty passed by the AO u/s 271D when there is no whisper of levy of penalty in the assessment order. 6. Ground No.1 and 3 are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 7. Ground No.2

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8914/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

aforesaid discussion, we answer the substantial question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee. We uphold levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeal is disposed of. No costs.” I.T.A. No.8914/Del/2019 14 5.10 In factum ... income being furnished by the appellant. In view of the factual matrix of the case and judicial precedent relied above (supra), the levy of penalty on this issue is directed to be deleted. 6. In the result, appeal is partly allowed.” I.T.A. No.8914/Del/2019 15 6. On perusal, we see that

Lr2 Management K/S [As Foreign Commr. Manager/Agent of Principal Freight Beneficiary, Torm A/S], Jamnagar vs. The Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Inter. Taxa., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2013-14 Lrs Management K/S (As Foreign Vs. Dcit (International Commercial Manager/ Agent Of Taxation), Rajkot. Principal Freight Beneficiary, Torm Gujarat. A/S) Correspondence Address: Interocean Shipping India P.Ltd. 301-Milestone P.N. Marg, Panchwati, Opp: Triveni Apartments Jamnagar 361 002. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Manish Kanth, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kanth, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 172(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

short] for the Asst.Year2013-14. 2 2. At the outset, it was pointed out that the issue pertains to levy of penalty for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed by the ld.CIT ... assessee. 5 7. Since the quantum addition stands deleted by the ITAT in the above order, there remains no basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and therefore the same is directed to be cancelled. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

Mr. Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

After two years on 15-05-2018, the AO had issued notice u/s. 274 read with section 271B of the Act proposing to levy of penalty u/s. 271B for the following faults: i) failed to get accounts audited or ii) failed to furnish a report of such audit as required ... issuing penalty notice u/s. 271B has not spelt out what was the fault for which the assessee is being proceeded against for levy of penalty. Since the AO has not struck down the irrelevant portion/fault which is not applicable in 5 Shri Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur. the facts and circumstances

Anika International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3348/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Nida Sultan, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts on record, the facts of the case are examined from record on jurisdictional issue of initiation of penalty and subsequent levy of penalty. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income whereas the 2 Anika International Pvt. Ltd penalty

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Sandeep Indrajeet Suri, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 233/NAG/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.233/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Central Circle- Shri Sandeep Indrajeet Suri, 2(1), Nagpur. Vs 600/A-12, Ratandeep Housing Society, Byramji Town, Nagpur. Pan: Aveps 0599 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 271A

Suri [R] (B) furnishes the return of income for the specified previous year declaring such undisclosed income therein; 9. The primary condition for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act is that there shall be a search under section 132 of the Act in the case

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 399/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

order of lower authorities, it is clearly discernible that assessee is in habit for non-compliance. This is a fit case for levy of penalty, as has been levied by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 11. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties ... assessee. I find that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 20.05.2021. I noted that the Assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for non-compliance of two notices vide his order dated 02/02/2021, that is prior to passing the assessment order. I further find that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 398/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

order of lower authorities, it is clearly discernible that assessee is in habit for non-compliance. This is a fit case for levy of penalty, as has been levied by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 11. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties ... assessee. I find that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 20.05.2021. I noted that the Assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for non-compliance of two notices vide his order dated 02/02/2021, that is prior to passing the assessment order. I further find that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 397/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

order of lower authorities, it is clearly discernible that assessee is in habit for non-compliance. This is a fit case for levy of penalty, as has been levied by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 11. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties ... assessee. I find that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 20.05.2021. I noted that the Assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for non-compliance of two notices vide his order dated 02/02/2021, that is prior to passing the assessment order. I further find that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 396/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

order of lower authorities, it is clearly discernible that assessee is in habit for non-compliance. This is a fit case for levy of penalty, as has been levied by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 11. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties ... assessee. I find that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 20.05.2021. I noted that the Assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for non-compliance of two notices vide his order dated 02/02/2021, that is prior to passing the assessment order. I further find that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 395/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

order of lower authorities, it is clearly discernible that assessee is in habit for non-compliance. This is a fit case for levy of penalty, as has been levied by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 11. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties ... assessee. I find that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 20.05.2021. I noted that the Assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for non-compliance of two notices vide his order dated 02/02/2021, that is prior to passing the assessment order. I further find that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 394/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

order of lower authorities, it is clearly discernible that assessee is in habit for non-compliance. This is a fit case for levy of penalty, as has been levied by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 11. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties ... assessee. I find that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 20.05.2021. I noted that the Assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for non-compliance of two notices vide his order dated 02/02/2021, that is prior to passing the assessment order. I further find that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 393/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

order of lower authorities, it is clearly discernible that assessee is in habit for non-compliance. This is a fit case for levy of penalty, as has been levied by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 11. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties ... assessee. I find that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 20.05.2021. I noted that the Assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for non-compliance of two notices vide his order dated 02/02/2021, that is prior to passing the assessment order. I further find that

Amit Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation-1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1563/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143Section 271

reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The CIT(A) is further directed to decide the issue relating to the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act after deciding the quantum appeal. 8. In the result, both the appeal are treated as allowed

Amit Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation-1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1562/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143Section 271

reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The CIT(A) is further directed to decide the issue relating to the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act after deciding the quantum appeal. 8. In the result, both the appeal are treated as allowed

Saraswati Devi Goyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of

ITA 1279/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Saraswati Devi Goyal Dcit Flat No.4, R. R. Apartment Vs New Delhi 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli New Delhi-110030 Pan No.Aeipg8121L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Gobind Kumar Goyal Acit Vs Flat No.4, R. R. Apartment, New Delhi 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan No.Alipk0103F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Gobind Kumar Goyal Dcit Flat No.4, R. R. Apartment, Vs New Delhi 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan No.Alipk0103F (Appellant) (Respondent)

have annulled the impugned assessment orders by way of a separate order in a batch of 111 appeals, thereby removing the foundation for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On that count also, the impugned penalty is liable to be deleted. 17. In the result

The Kekri Cooperative Marketing Society, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 249(3)Section 271(1)Section 80P

Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2013-14 wherein the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal. ‘’Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)© of Rs.1,01,469/- is bad in law.’’ THE KEKRI COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY VS ITO, WARD 2(3), AJMER 2.1 Apropos ... were kept on serving on his e-mail/id and the bank staff was not aware of proceedings and ex-parte order of levy of penalty on account of concealment of income. From the available records, it appears that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and thus the delay

Sandeep Sethi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 155/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132(1)

without giving an opportunity to the assessee is against the principles of nature justice. Not only that once the ld. AO choose to levy the penalty he cannot go beyond what he has proposed in the order. Therefore, the levy of tax u/s. 115BBE beyond the scope of the order ... income a further penalty @10% of tax shall also be levied followed by prosecution. It may be noted that the provisions for levy of penalty for misreporting of income @200% of tax payable under section 270A of the Income-tax Act have not been amended and shall continue to apply