“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

Bombay Tyres, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6593/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am Bombay Tyres Income Tax Officer-15(1)(1) Room No. 456, 4Th Floor, 23, Arenja Corner, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Vs. Aaykara Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aagcb 1604 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am : This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 22.08.2025 Of First Appellate Authority, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Filed Application Dated 09.03.2026, Seeking Permission To Withdraw The Appeal. The Contents Of The Said Letter Are As Under: Sub: Application For Withdrawal Of Appeal (Ita 6593/Mum/2025) Assessment Year 2017-18 Pan: Aagcb1604E With Reference To The Above-Captioned Appeal, The Appellant Respectfully Submits As Under: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Dated 22Nd August 2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271F Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Amounting To Rs.5,000/-. 2. Upon Reconsideration Of The Matter, The Appellant Does Not Wish To Press The Present Appeal. 3. The Appellant Has Paid The Penalty Demand Of Rs.5,000/- Arising Pursuant To The Impugned Penalty Order U/S.271F Dated 21 March, 2025. 2 Bombay Tyres Vs. Ito 4. The Appellant Therefore Seeks Permission Of The Hon'Ble Tribunal To Withdraw The Present Appeal & Dismiss The Same As Withdrawn/Not Pressed. Thanking You, 3. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. Dr For Short) Has No Objection To The Assessee’S Prayer.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 271F

present appeal has been filed against the order dated 22nd August 2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.5,000/-. 2. Upon reconsideration of the matter, the Appellant does not wish

Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion, Roorkee vs. Income Tax Officer, Roorkee

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 41/DDN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Since we have restored the assessee’s appeal filed against the order passed u/s 143(3), therefore, the levy of penalty for the addition in such order has no legs to stand therefore, the same is hereby deleted. AO is at liberty to initiate

Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion, Roorkee vs. Income Tax Officer, Roorkee

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 40/DDN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

Rajkamal Agnihotri, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Rajkamal Agnihotri Vs Ito Shivalik View, Lane No.3, Ward-1(1)(3) Jogiala, Ring Road, Dehradun Nathanpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -248005 Pan-Amqpa2608G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10408670 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,89,260/-. The Return Was Updated On 11.09.2023 U/S 139(8A) Of The Act, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 73,92,200/- & Paid The Taxes Alongwith The Interest Thereon. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Ground That No Capital Gain Was Reported In Itr Though The Assessee Has Sold The Property Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Act Dated 14.03.2024 Wherein Income Declared In The Updated Return Filed U/S 139(8A) Of The Act Was Accepted However, Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A(1) R.W.S. 270A(8) & 270A(9)(A) Of The Act Were Initiated. The Ao Thereafter, Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings & Imposed The Penalty In Terms Of The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Imposing The Penalty Of Inr 31,58,542/- U/S 270A Of The Act.

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 19Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 9

consequence of mis-reporting. Ld. CIT DR further submits that the assessee has filed updated return and claimed the immunity from the levy of penalty however, as per the Third proviso to section 139(8A), no updated return could be filed where the assessment or re-assessment or re-computation ... different, and therefore, the assessee is entitled to know the exact charge it has to meet-Even otherwise, the basic jurisdictional requirement for levy of penalty unders 270A(2) is absent, inasmuch as the income assessed is not greater than the income determined in the return processed under

Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Nyt, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita No. 306 To 307 & 311/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamita Subhash Road, Sankeshwar Belagavi-591313 Pan:Aaaas5612D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

parte on the basis of material available on record and countenanced the action of Ld. AO thus confirmed 80P(2) denial, assessment and levy of penalty by separate orders as captioned hereinbefore. 9. Further aggrieved, the assessee came in present bunch of three appeals against each of the impugned orders

Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Nyt, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 307/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Nyt, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Gokak

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

Shree Swati Texdyes Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2222/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 270ASection 40

order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee raised three grounds of appeal challenging the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. In Ground No.1 the assessee contended that the deduction towards Health and Education Cess was claimed based ... case was not covered by the exception provided under section 270A(6) of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty of ₹3,69,579/- imposed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. The assessee is in appeal before us against

Suman Nilakanth Masal, Ahemdnagar vs. ITO Ward-2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2279/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19 Suman Nilakanth Masal Ito, Ward – 2, 983, Masal Colony, Rashin Karji, Vs. Ahmednagar Ahmednagar – 414403 Pan: Bvrpm6017J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Amit Bobde, Cit Date Of Hearing : 11-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2026

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 69

restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the appeal on the issue of levy of penalty after the quantum appeal is decided. Needless to say the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shall decide the issue as per fact

Mahesh Kenchanagundu, Nandyala vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nandyal

ITA 1611/HYD/2025[2015-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita.No.1611/Hyd/2025

Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Naseer Ahmath Riswana Fathima, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 1(4), Cheenai, Chennai

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

ITA 3415/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3415/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. K.Vishwa padmanabhan, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

further submitted that when the audit report is submitted before the completion of assessment then the levy of penalty u/s. 271B of the Act is not warranted. We notice that in assessee's case the audit report in Form No.3CA was filed on 30.03.2018 and the A.O passed the order ... Riswana Fathima :- 4 -: report has been made available before the AO, when the assessment proceedings were completed, then, there is no reason for levy of penalty. 8. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that reasons

Kuruzu Russelian, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied u/s

ITA 2830/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

this premise, the AO concluded that the assessee had deliberately concealed the particulars of income. Accordingly, the :-4-: ITA. No:2830/Chny/2025 AO levied a penalty of Rs.48,29,183/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 29.09.2023 for concealment of income. 7. Aggrieved by the penalty order passed ... ground of limitation as well as on merits. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 9. The Ld.AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that

Shri Beereshwar Co-Op Credit Society Ltd Madabhavi, Belagavi vs. ITO Ward-2, Belagavi

ITA 487/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 487/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80P(2)

Nos.487/PAN/2025 AY: 2020-21 2. This appeal deals with the legitimacy of action of first appellate authority in confirming levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act when appeal against quantum is pending for adjudication on merits. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee Mr Halbhavi ... investment made in the regular course of business which is still pending before the Ld. first appellate authority for disposal. 3.4 The impugned levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act was also assailed by the assessee by filing first appeal before Ld. first appellate authority. Pending the disposal

Binaben Jayeshbhai Gor, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 1, Vapi

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

ITA 1456/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2012-13

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(b)Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act when no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s. 272A(1)(b) of the Act when no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped

Amish Pravinchandra Vyas, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the question is answered in the negative, i

ITA 1924/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the assessee appeal.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the assessee appeal. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before ... computation of total income and the deeming provisions cannot be and should not be further enlarged and extended for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 5. It is therefore prayed that impugned order u/s. 271(1)(c) imposing penalty of Rs.6,20,524/- with respect

Bhopal Singh Chaudhary, Srinagar Garhwal vs. ITO Srinagar, Srinagar Garhwal

ITA 5/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 50CSection 56(2)

respectively. 2. Since both the appeals are related to one assessee and against the additions made in reassessment order and consequent levy of penalty u/s 271A of the Act, therefore, they are taken together and ITA No. 236/DDN/2025 & 05/DDN/2026 decided by a common order. First we take assessee’s appeal

Bhopal Singh Chaudhary, Dehradun vs. ITO Srinagar, Srinagar Garhwal

ITA 236/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 50CSection 56(2)

Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bharuch

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 836/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.835/Srt/2025 आयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.836/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai The Ito बनाम/ Kothari Ward-1(4) V/S. 2 119 Parkhetiafaliyu Kervada Bharuch – 356 069 Amod Bharuch Bharuch – 392 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cfupk 6177 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surendra Modiani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11/06/2025 (Quantum Appeal) & 12/06/2025 (Penalty Appeal) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14. Ita Nos.835 & 836/Srt/2025 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

freshly passed assessment order will be of the view that the case of the assessee is fit for levy of penalty, he will be at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings in accordance with law. ITA Nos.835 & 836/SRT/2025 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari vs. ITO Asst. Year

Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bharuch

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 835/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

Achala Punja, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2630/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

penalty proceedings. In the absence of any response from the assessee, the AO proceeded to pass the impugned penalty order dated 16.09.2022, levying a penalty of Rs.61,31,504/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income. 8. Aggrieved of the penalty order, assessee carried ... extent. It is well settled that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings; however, when the addition or disallowance forming the basis for levy of penalty is substantially deleted in quantum proceedings, the penalty levied with reference to such addition cannot be sustained. In the present case, the assessee