“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

Ashalata Kulshrestha, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1737/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

clear indisputable finding recorded in penalty order vide para no. 17 on page no. 16. Since initiation of penalty for one ground and levy of penalty on other ground is not permissible, I request Hon'ble Court to delete the penalty on this ground. I.T.A No. 1737/Ahd/2025 Ashalata Kulshrestha

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Radhika Jewellers, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1263/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

petrol expenses (Rs.93,313/-). The AO has, in para 5 of the penalty order, tried to justify the levy of penalty on the additional income declared during survey proceedings. The reasoning offered by the AO is that the amount declared was detected consequent to the survey proceedings and that this ... facts of the case, the submissions made by the AO and the rulings of various courts, there is no ground for levy of penalty and accordingly the penalty of Rs.62,11,054/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted.” 4. Aggrieved against

Nagaiah Kekkireni, Suryapet vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 932/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

order of the learner CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.12,12,372/- without considering the fact that there is no concealment of income. 3. The learned ... assessment and if the assessment itself is debatable, the penalty proceedings cannot survive. 10. This court is also of the opinion that levy of penalty cannot be a matter of course, as sought to be contended by the Revenue. It can only be levied in cases where the concealment

Sujith Surampudi, Ghatkesar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mancherial

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

ITA 1630/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1630/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Sujith Surampudi Vs. Income Tax Officer Ghatkesar Ward 1 Pan:Cwcps7355A Mancherial (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Swathi Sheela राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sujith Surampudi (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.09.2025 For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order U/S250 Of The Act Dt. 15-09-2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: C.A Swathi SheelaFor Respondent: : Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 144rSection 250Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)

extent prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the act of Rs.20,000/- by the AO dt. 14.08.2024 is not sustainable as the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause ... issued by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO, therefore, passed a penalty order under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act on 14.08.2024, levying a penalty of Rs.20,000/- at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per default for non- compliance with two notices. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order

Surabi Educational and Charitable Trust, Dindigul vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY

ITA 2765/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2759, 2760, 2761, 2762, 2763, 2764 & 2765/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Richard Joseph, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal confirming the disallowances made by the A.O. The CIT(A) also confirmed the levy of penalty by the A.O u/s. 270A of the Act for the same reason that the assessee did not furnish any details. 3. We have heard

Surabi Educational and Charitable Trust, Dindigul vs. ACIT, Exmeptions, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY

ITA 2764/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Richard Joseph, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

Surabi Educational and Charitable Trust, Dindigul vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY

ITA 2763/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Richard Joseph, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

Surabi Educational and Charitable Trust, Dindigul vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY

ITA 2762/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Richard Joseph, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

Surabi Educational and Charitable Trust, Dindigul vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY

ITA 2761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Richard Joseph, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

Surabi Educational and Charitable Trust, Dindigul vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY

ITA 2759/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2759, 2760, 2761, 2762, 2763, 2764 & 2765/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Surabi Educational & Charitable Trust, S7/2 Prnp Complex, Kumaran Thiru Nagar, Silavathur Road, Dindigul – 624 005. Pan: Aafts 0804D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tax (Exemptions), Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Mr. Richard Joseph, Advocate Ms. Latchana, Jcit 16.12.2025 07.01.2026 आदेश / Order These Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For Assessment Years (Ay) 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Order Of The Cit(A) Is Emanating From The Order Of The A.O Passed U/S. 143(3) & The Penalty Orders U/S. 270A, 271Aac(1), 272A(1)(D) & 272A(1)(C) Of The Act. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, We Will First Consider The Appeal Filed For A.Y 2018-19.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

dismissed the appeal confirming the disallowances made by the A.Ο. The CIT(A) also confirmed the levy of penalty by the A.O u/s. 270A of the Act for the same reason that the assessee did not furnish any details. 3. We have heard the both the parities, perused

Anil Kumar Gang, Jodhpur vs. ITO 3(1) Jodhpur, Jodhpur

ITA 5313/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth

Section 143(1)Section 154

there shall be a charge upon all the assets of the company. Moreover, section 221 of the Act inter alia provides for the levy of penalty and section 276B of the Act inter alia provides that where a person fails to pay to the credit of the Central Government

Rana Ravi Singh & Sons (HUF), Dhanbad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Dhanbad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 94/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr. DR

Section 271A

restored to the file of the ld. AO by the ld.CIT(A) vide his order dated 21.01.2025 for readjudication, the very legs for levy of penalty nor more survive. Consequently, the penalties levied u/s.271AA and 270A of the Act in both the appeals of the assessee stands quashed. Liberty

Rana Ravi Singh & Sons (HUF), Dhanbad vs. ITO, Ward-2(10, Dhanbad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 93/RAN/2025[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr. DR

Section 271A

Income Tax Officer, Ranchi, Jharkhand vs. Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi, Jharkhand

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.61/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito, Ranchi………..…………….…….…...................................……….……Appellant Vs. Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd ……....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 21, Ashok Bhawan, Kali Asthan Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand. [Pan: Aadca7460J] Appearances By: Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.01.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Special Smokeless Coal/Coke. The Assessee Also Derives Income By Way Of Interest On Bank Deposits. As Per Information Available With The Income-Tax Department, It Was Noticed That The Assessee’S Bank Accounts Reflected Substantial Cash Deposits, Which Were Allegedly Withdrawn Immediately Through Rtgs/Neft Transactions. It Was Further Observed That There Existed A Difference Between The Turnover Disclosed By The Assessee In The Return Of Income & The Total Credits Appearing In The Bank Accounts. On The Basis Of The Above Information, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Initiated Reassessment Proceedings By Issuing A Notice Under Section 148 Of The

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 273B

adjournment. On account of alleged non- compliance, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings after issuing notice under section 273B of the Act, proposing levy of penalty under section 270A/270AA of the Act. The assessee raised objections against the reopening of the assessment proceedings vide objections dated 15.02.2022, which were duly

Anjaneya Ispat Limited, Jamshedpur vs. CIT(A), Jamshedpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/RAN/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.191/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Cit(A), Jamshedpur.………….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 18.01.2019 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Instant Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.01.2019 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 271(1)(C) Read With Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Whereby The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined At ₹37,00,000, As Against The Income Originally Assessed. Consequent To The Said Appellate Order, The Assessing Officer Initiated Penalty Proceedings & Passed An Order Dated 18.01.2019 Under Section 270A(1)(C) Of The Act, Imposing A Penalty Of ₹27,00,000, Being 200% Of The Tax Alleged To Be Evaded, On The Addition Of ₹37,00,000. I.T.A. No.191/Ran/2023 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd

Section 250Section 270A(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

alleged to be evaded, on the addition of ₹37,00,000. I.T.A. No.191/Ran/2023 M/s Anjeneya Ispat Ltd 3. Aggrieved by the levy of penalty, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty imposed is purely consequential to the quantum addition

Marut Paper Products Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 393/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

limine for want of prosecution without going into the merits of the case. In view of foregoing, he submitted that the dispute regarding levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act should be restored back to the file of learned CIT(A) with a direction to pass denovo ... view of the foregoing, the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the dispute regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is restored back to the learned CIT(A) with a direction to poass denovo order in accordance with law after

Sandip Ganpat Lokhande, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(2), Pune

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

ITA 2628/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2628/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sandip Ganpat Lokhande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2), Pune. A/P Annapur, Tal- Shirur, Shirur S.O., Pune- 412210. Pan : Akepl2437L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Manish Sinha Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal By Not Condoning The Delay Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 270A At Rs 3,59,726/- Towards Alleged Misreporting Of Income. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Substitute Any Ground Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 270A

delay without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of penalty u/s 270A at Rs 3,59,726/- towards alleged misreporting of income. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute

Kalpesh Deepak Fuldale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(2), Pune

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

ITA 2627/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2627/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalpesh Deepak Fuldale, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2), Pune. A/P Pargaon (S.M.), Tal- Daund, Dist- Pune- 412203. Pan : Arhpp1574G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Manish Sinha Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Facts & On Law In Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 270A Under Reporting / Misreporting Of Income.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 270A

appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The ld CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in confirming levy of penalty u/s 270A under reporting / misreporting of income. 2 2. The ld CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in failing to specify the limb

Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Dakshina Kannada vs. Dy./Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Mangalore

ITA 1508/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 271B

violation of principles of natural justice. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. AO has erred in levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B. 5. The appellant craves for leave to, add to, delete from or amend the grounds of appeal ... noted above and also there is no reasonable cause for such default year after year and after considering all the above, the AO levied the penalty u/s 271B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- or a sum equal to one-half percent of the total sales, turnover

Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Dakshina Kannada vs. Dy./Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1507/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 253(5)Section 271B

violation of principles of natural justice. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. AO has erred in levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B. 5. The appellant craves for leave to, add to, delete from or amend the grounds of appeal ... noted above and also there is no reasonable cause for such default year after year and after considering all the above, the AO levied the penalty u/s 271B of the Act amounting to ITA Nos.1504 to 1508/Bang/2025 Sri Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Sullia Page 9 of 16 Rs.1