← 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

Dy. CIT-10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3175/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 55(2)

income rather assessee has shown the consideration received as a capital receipt which was not capital but a revenue receipt” AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.2,64,18,000/- & Rs.7,17,50,000/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded under section ... impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) contended that when assessee has apparently concealed the facts during assessment the AO has rightly levied the penalty and thereby relied upon the penalty order passed by the AO. 5. However, on the other hand, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended

Dy. CIT-10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2050/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 55(2)

income rather assessee has shown the consideration received as a capital receipt which was not capital but a revenue receipt” AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.2,64,18,000/- & Rs.7,17,50,000/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded under section ... impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) contended that when assessee has apparently concealed the facts during assessment the AO has rightly levied the penalty and thereby relied upon the penalty order passed by the AO. 5. However, on the other hand, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended

M/S. National Decorators Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1790/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1790/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) M/S. National Decorators बिधम/ Jcit Of It, Cir-25(3) 2, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Kautilya Bhawan, G Vs. Road, Vile Parle (E), Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400056. Complex Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffn0305E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Against The Penalty Confirmed By Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ao) U/S 271Da Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 269SSection 271D

Taking into consideration, the overall facts and circumstances of the case as discussed (supra) according to us, there was reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty u/s 271DA of the Act [as provided for in that section]. Therefore, we direct deletion of penalty imposed by JCIT. 6. In the result

Income Tax Officer-9(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Evergreen Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5483/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shyam AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Pitta Samuel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty order, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order dated 31/05/2019, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on the basis that levy of penalty is merely on disallowance of expenditure and not concealment of any particulars or mala fide intention to reduce the taxable income. Being aggrieved, the Revenue ... appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.” 12. Since similar submissions have been made by both the parties in the present case, wherein levy of penalty of Rs.65,655, is under challenge, therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal

Muthukumar Murugesan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corp Cir 11(1), Chennai

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

ITA 292/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.292/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Muthukumar Murugesan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 31, Anjugam Street, Meenatchi Income Tax, Amman Nagar,Alwarthirunagar, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), Chennai 600 087. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aompm8457K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 30.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By The Assessing Officer Without Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals). The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Relates To Quantum Addition, Whereas, The Form 36, Under Column No. 6 – Section & Sub-Section Under Which The Original Order Is Passed, The Assessee Has Mentioned Section 271(1)(B) Or 271B Of The Act Relates To 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

271B of the Act relates to 2 I.T.A. No.292/Chny/21 penalty. The assessee should have filed separate appeals for quantum addition and levy of penalty before the ld. CIT(A), who is the first appellate authority to adjudicate the matter and thereafter, the assessee should have filed the appeal before ITAT

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

Assessing Officer and two appeals in ITA Nos.171 & Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai in ITA No.303 & 304/19-20 both orders dated 23.02.2021 confirming the levy of penalty by the AO. The assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10 u/s.153A r.w.s ... from the Department on 18.05.2011 about any appeal filed, we come to know the omission on our part. We have also received orders levying huge penalty u/s 271 AAA on 20.05.2011. 5. We have handed over the orders to Shri A. Arjunraj, FCA, on 27.05.2011 and the appeal is filed

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 172/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

Assessing Officer and two appeals in ITA Nos.171 & Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai in ITA No.303 & 304/19-20 both orders dated 23.02.2021 confirming the levy of penalty by the AO. The assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10 u/s.153A r.w.s ... from the Department on 18.05.2011 about any appeal filed, we come to know the omission on our part. We have also received orders levying huge penalty u/s 271 AAA on 20.05.2011. 5. We have handed over the orders to Shri A. Arjunraj, FCA, on 27.05.2011 and the appeal is filed

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 171/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

Assessing Officer and two appeals in ITA Nos.171 & Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai in ITA No.303 & 304/19-20 both orders dated 23.02.2021 confirming the levy of penalty by the AO. The assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10 u/s.153A r.w.s ... from the Department on 18.05.2011 about any appeal filed, we come to know the omission on our part. We have also received orders levying huge penalty u/s 271 AAA on 20.05.2011. 5. We have handed over the orders to Shri A. Arjunraj, FCA, on 27.05.2011 and the appeal is filed

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

Assessing Officer and two appeals in ITA Nos.171 & Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai in ITA No.303 & 304/19-20 both orders dated 23.02.2021 confirming the levy of penalty by the AO. The assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10 u/s.153A r.w.s ... from the Department on 18.05.2011 about any appeal filed, we come to know the omission on our part. We have also received orders levying huge penalty u/s 271 AAA on 20.05.2011. 5. We have handed over the orders to Shri A. Arjunraj, FCA, on 27.05.2011 and the appeal is filed

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

case, under the provision of the law, and under the judicial precedence, the Assessing Officer of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi erred in levying the penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the loan is received from the Executive Directors to the Company, who are JICE Academy ... fact and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi erred in levying the penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the transaction between the Executive Directors and the Company has not been doubted during the course of scrutiny assessment and found

Saravana Foundation, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3376/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3376/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Saravana Foundation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15, Bajanai Koil Street, Non Corporate Ward 15(4), Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. Chennai. [Pan:Abmfs6610H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai Dated 17.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147oSection 148Section 271BSection 44A

No.3376/Chny/18 6. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act, the assessee has submitted the reasons for the delay in filing the audit report before ... Department is that the assessee has not furnished the tax audit report on or before the due date i.e., 30.09.2011 and therefore, levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act is warranted. The case of the assessee is that tax audit report under section 44AB

Sri. C. N. Babu, Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Ramanagara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1823/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Tribunal. 6. Since the very addition on the basis on which penalty was imposed on the Assessee has been deleted, the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be deleted. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee

Anuradha Chivukula Challa, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Range-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 585/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(It)A No.585/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa The Additional Commissioner No.12, Seshu, 12Th Cross Of Income-Tax, International V. Indiranagar 1St Stage Taxation, Range – 1 Bangalore – 560 038. Bangalore. Pan : Bgapc8765M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 08.06.2022. The Order Of The Cit(A) Arises Out Of The Order Of A.O. Imposing Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017- 2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Imposed U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

assessee ought to have received the entire consideration by banking transaction only. Any violation of the same is attracted u/s 269SS and for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act. To this extent the assessee has made a technical violation of the IT provisions. 8. The submission

Smt.Adithyapan Amutha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 74/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

filed belatedly. Even half of the period is during Covid-19 and assessee never received or never served any notice regarding levy of penalty nor raised any demand on account of this penalty by the Department. Hence, it was contended that the appeal be admitted and delay be condoned ... respect of item No.(i) unaccounted sales of Rs.17,75,004/- & (iii) unexplained expenses at Rs.3,29,880/- and thereby confirmed the levy of penalty on the addition of Rs.27,75,004/-. We noted that the CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simpliciter by recording the following findings in para

Manav Gems, Mumbai vs. Asstt Comm of Income Tax Circle 19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1882/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10
Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

only identical issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c)of the Act made by the ld. AO in respect of addition made on account of bogus purchases on an estimated basis

Manav Gems, Mumbau vs. Circle 19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1881/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

only identical issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c)of the Act made by the ld. AO in respect of addition made on account of bogus purchases on an estimated basis

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain determined itself is bad in law. Rs.9,62,91,447/- 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the relevant assessment year is opposed to law and to the principles of natural justice and accordingly ... ought not to have confirmed the levy of penalty. Rs.9,62,91,447/- 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there being no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unwarranted. 6. Rs.9

Scorditte Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 2002/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s.271(1)(c) can legally be sustained for estimated disallowance made in respect of alleged hawala/non-genuine purchases.” 3. Appellant has challenged the levy of penalty of INR 37,25,254/- by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been confirmed ... under: ITA. No.2002/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 “4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The assessee is in appeal against levy of penalty in respect of assessee‟s involvement in obtaining bogus purchase bills. In quantum proceedings, the AO made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases

Ksb Care Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem) 1 (4), Mumbai

ITA 1760/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhksb Care Charitable Vs. Ito (Exm)- 1(4) Trust Piramal Chambers, C/O Ksb Ltd Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbaipune Road, Mumbai-400012. Pimpri, Pune-411018. Pan/Gir No. : Aabtk4311M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Biren Gabhawala.Ar Respondent By : Shri Vivek Anand Ojha.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Biren Gabhawala.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Anand Ojha.DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(C)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

inadvertent error in filing the wrong form is not reason to make addition or deny accumulation. 2 Your appellant prays that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on your appellant for an inadvertent error being unwarranted, unjustified and unlawful may kindly be deleted

Rajkumar Bidawatka, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT -14(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1656/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1656/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-14(3)(1), Rajkumar Bidawatka Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, C-302, Rock Avenue, Plot Mumbai-400 020 No. D, Opp-Joy Ice Cream बिधम/ Near Hindustan Naka, Vs. Kandivali(W), Mumbai- 400 067 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaipb4224H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Navneet Lahoti, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 07.06.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceeding U/S 271(1)(B) For Ay 2010-11. 2

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Lahoti, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR
Section 115WSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

relation to penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) for AY 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. No. 1656/Mum/2022 Rajkumar Bidawatka 2. Assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/271(1)(b) for some alleged non-compliance of notice u/s 148. 3. The facts in brief are that, assessee ... reminder letter dated 14.08.17, 15.09.17, 16.10.17 and 10.11.17 which was not complied by the assessee and based on such non-compliance, he has levied the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b). 4. From perusal of the said letters/reminders, we find that AO has written letter to comply