← 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

Janseva Majoor Sahakari Sanshtha Maryadit, Mahim vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Lower Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5752/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush ChhachedFor Respondent: 12/11/2025
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 were passed against the co-operative society dated 29.09.2014 levying a penalty of Rs. 22,68,409/- and Rs. 8,89,073/- respectively, against which appeals were preferred before CIT (Appeals). 3. Subsequently, the Co-operative society ... section 148 on the basis of information available with the department, the income would have escaped assessment. Therefore, the AO was right in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) and his order should be upheld. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available

M/S. Ajmera Housing Corporation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai

ITA 4450/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) M/S. Ajmera Housing Corporation Cit(Appeals) 1St Floor, Hanuman Corporation Aayakar Bhavan 308 Perin, Nariman Road, Fort Vs. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaafa3654J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Surendra MohanFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jotwani
Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(2)(g)

bogus expenditure. Since there is neither concealment nor malafides, penalty should not have been levied/ confirmed by lower authorities and hence the levy of penalty may be deleted, it was argued by Ld. AR. 3. The Ld. DR has stated that due to incorrect treatment of cost resulted ... gave a categorical finding that the genuineness of expenditure is not doubted, the penalty levied cannot be sustained. 5. So, the levy of penalty by Ld. AO is deleted. The appeal of appellant company is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/11/2025. (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

date of passing the penalty order (which was passed on 30" March 2023) and consequently the Appellant is eligible for immunity from levy of penalty under provisions of section 155(18) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AO CIT (A)has failed to appreciate that the Appellant has reduced ... moto withdrew its claim for cess amounting to Rs. 12,85,58,982/- to buy mental peace and to avoid litigation and levy of penalty etc. vide letter dated 19.03.2022. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner-company has concealed any fact or misrepresented. In the above

Santosh Kumar, Atarra, Banda vs. Income Tax Officer, Banda

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Govind Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 250Section 268Section 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 274Section 275(1)(c)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) NFAC. has erred in law and on facts by confirming the levy of penalty, without appreciating the complete facts in the case which could not be brought on record due to the serious illness of Counsel ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) NFAC. has erred in law and on facts by confirming the levy of penalty, without appreciating the complete facts that the aggregate loan repayment of Rs.2,70,776/- by the Appellant during the year have been made

Santosh Kumar, Atarra Banda vs. Income Tax Officer, Banda

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 88/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Govind Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 250Section 268Section 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 274Section 275(1)(c)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) NFAC. has erred in law and on facts by confirming the levy of penalty, without appreciating the complete facts in the case which could not be brought on record due to the serious illness of Counsel ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) NFAC. has erred in law and on facts by confirming the levy of penalty, without appreciating the complete facts that the aggregate loan repayment of Rs.2,70,776/- by the Appellant during the year have been made

Jayshree Chandrasingh Kabali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 27 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7226/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69

application for grant of stay, in respect of amount already paid, assessee has mentioned ‘nil’. In respect of stay application relating to levy of penalty, the demand raised is of Rs.54,07,500/- against which also amount already paid mentioned by the assessee in the stay petition

Jayshree Chandrasingh Kabali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 27 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7225/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69

application for grant of stay, in respect of amount already paid, assessee has mentioned ‘nil’. In respect of stay application relating to levy of penalty, the demand raised is of Rs.54,07,500/- against which also amount already paid mentioned by the assessee in the stay petition

Valaka Engineering Private Limited, West Bengal vs. ACIT, Circle – 20, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 3932/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Yash Mehta, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

restricted the penalty of Rs. 1,76,037/- on this un-explained credit in bank account of Rs. 5,69,700/-. Aggrieved by levy of penalty, the Assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also 3 | P a g e ValakaEngg Private Ltd Vs ACIT, Circle ... Going by these evidences, we are of the view that once this is not an income, there is no question of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, we delete the penalty and allow this appeal of the Assessee. 10. In the result, the Appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Ajay Golechaa, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 454/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

particulars of his income and liable to be penalized under section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, I levy a penalty of Rs.536500/-being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.” 6 DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Ajay Golechaa 4. Against the penalty order ... dated Jul 20, 2018 has deleted the addition itself. After which there was no question of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Penalty has been imposed only on the basis of findings in assessment proceedings. In the assessment proceedings, no specific adverse conclusive finding relating to the affairs

Hercules Automobiles International Private Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. AO Type-W, Aayakar Bhawan, Alleppey

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

ITA 776/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hercules Automobiles International P. Ltd. .......... Appellant Tc No.16/1860, Dpi Road, Thycaud S.O. Chempakassery, Thiruvananthapuram 695014 [Pan: Aabcn2898M] Vs. Dcit, Circle - 1, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Jose Zachariah, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jose Zachariah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

income. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant filed explanation and the same was rejected by the AO and proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 6,74,882/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 17.03.2022. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before ... present appeal. 3 Hercules Automobiles International P. Ltd. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that mere addition does not entail levy of penalty. Penalty cannot be imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submits that in the case of reassessment penalty

Islahi English Medium School, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

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

ITA 750/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Islahi English Meidum School .......... Appellant Irikkur P.O., Kannur 670593 [Pan: Aaaai9586J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Kannur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Suresh Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 19.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Association Of Persons Running Educational Institution. No Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Was Filed By The Appellant. Therefore, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Kannur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Reopened The Assessment By Issuing A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 274Section 44A

that it is not liable to maintain books of account and get it audited. Rejecting the above contention the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action ... have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is the levy of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- u/s. 271A of the Act. It is the contention of the appellant that it is under the bona fide belief that

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 725/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

concealment of income. In response to the show cause notice the appellant had not filed any explanation. Therefore, the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 724/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

concealment of income. In response to the show cause notice the appellant had not filed any explanation. Therefore, the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 723/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

concealment of income. In response to the show cause notice the appellant had not filed any explanation. Therefore, the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 722/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

concealment of income. In response to the show cause notice the appellant had not filed any explanation. Therefore, the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

Sandeep Jalan, Guwahati vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed

ITA 157/GTY/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Dated 08.12.2023, Under The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. Period Of Delay: There Is A Delay Of 494 Days In Filing The Said Appeal

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

course of original assessment proceedings having been made on the basis of probabilities, surmises and conjectures, the same cannot be a ground for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. For that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings stand on different footing

Attu Purattu Ismail, Thalassery vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kannur

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

ITA 812/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Attupurattu Ismail .......... Appellant Attupuratt House, Thalassesry, Kannur 670676 [Pan: Abfbi7471M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kannur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Ananthakrishnan R. Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 01.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Was Filed On 22.03.2014 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 2,63,300/-. The Search & Seizure Operations U/S. 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Conducted In The Business Premises Of Parco Group Of Concerns

For Appellant: Shri Ananthakrishnan R. CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the case of assessment made u/s. 148 of the Act. In our opinion provisions of Explanation 5A to section

Koyamu Kakkat, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 716/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Koyamu Kakkat .......... Appellant K.K. House, Odayalathodi, Kallithodi Road Chungam, Feroke, Kozhikode 673631 [Pan: Bxypk2972H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

order dated 16.05.2025 remitted the matter back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. Meanwhile, the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty for concealment of income and levied penalty of Rs. 19,60,490/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated

Penninti Vivekananda Rao, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1494/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1494/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Penninti Vivekananda Vs. Adit (International Rao, Hyderabad Taxation)-2 Pan:Ayupp1895L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Penninti Vivekananda Rao (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 29.07.2025 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Smt. U Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 270A

Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the solitary issue arising out of the grounds of appeal of the assessee is on account of the levy of penalty of Rs. Rs.2,48,02,158/- under section 270A of the Act. The arguments of the Ld. AR were manifold. One of Page ... offered the income from surrender of the Bajaj Equity Plus Fund in his return of income. Accordingly, the lower authority has rightly levied the penalty Page 5 of 11 ITA No 1494 of 2025 Penninti Vivekananda Rao under section 270A of the Act on the assessee. He accordingly prayed

Subbalakshmamma Pinnama, Thummalagunta, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1463/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 45

return. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that payment of part of the tax before reopening does not cure the default nor prevent levy of penalty for under-reporting. He held that, the case fell squarely under Section 270A(2)(c) of the Act, as the assessee filed the return ... assessee for the income offered towards capital gains derived from the transfer of property. Therefore, the A.O. ought not to have levied the penalty under Section 270A of the Act, for under- reporting of income. The Ld. CIT(A), without appreciating relevant facts, simply sustained the penalty levied