← 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

Akhilesh Singhal, Rishikesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Rishikesh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

assessee. 24. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.79/DDN/2024 [AY 2015-16] 25. The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act of INR 40,000/- for non-compliance of statutory notices. 26. From the perusal of the notice issued

Akhilesh Singhal, Rishikesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Rishikesh

ITA 78/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

ITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “SMC & DB" BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

Akhilesh Singhal, Rishikesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Rishikesh

ITA 64/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

ITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “SMC & DB" BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

Rupesh Tambi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 271A

excess stock which was deducted during in the course of search thereby leaving undisclosed income at Rs.74,03,832/- was considered liable for levy of penalty as per clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271AAB of the Act for an amount of Rs.22,21,149/- being thirty percent ... contention raised by the appellant is omni bus and vague as they cannot be any legal provision/interpretation which would exempt the assessee from levy of penalty if such assessee records the correct quantity of stock in the books of accounts however EITHER the purchase cost is suppressed in the books

Kanvar Corporation, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-50(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1683/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Kanvar Corporation, Vs Dcit, A-26, Basement & Ground Circle-50(1), Floor, New Delhi. Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110 028. Pan: Aalfk6427E (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Nfac/2016-17/10066962 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 21.12.2021 Passed U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ao, Nafac (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. DR
Section 270A

creditors were not in existence as there was no confirmation. The assessee had not challenged the quantum addition and merely approached challenging the levy of penalty which has been sustained by the impugned order wherein it was observed that the assessee had failed to appear for five years ... proceedings. However, there is no findings of NFAC on merits to show that the issues giving rise to levy of penalty u/s 270A were examined in the context of nature of disallowance and would the nature of disallowance on account of sundry creditors should result into levy 2 of penalty

Kishan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1155/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 69ASection 69C

penalties under various sections 271 (1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The initiation and the levy of penalty are the subject matter of separate proceedings and hence are beyond the scope of the present appeal. 10. Ground No 4: This ground is general

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1810/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

quantum assessment as detailed above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74 ... requirement of issuing a valid and precise notice is not a mere procedural formality but goes to the very root of jurisdiction for levy of penalty. A defective notice cannot confer valid jurisdiction upon the AO to impose penalty. :-13-: ITA. Nos:1801 to 1810/Chny/2025 71. We find that

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1809/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

quantum assessment as detailed above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74 ... requirement of issuing a valid and precise notice is not a mere procedural formality but goes to the very root of jurisdiction for levy of penalty. A defective notice cannot confer valid jurisdiction upon the AO to impose penalty. :-13-: ITA. Nos:1801 to 1810/Chny/2025 71. We find that

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

ITA 1808/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 & 1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021 -22 & 2017-18 To 2021-22 Chungath Varghese Sunny, 275-276, Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan:Ageps-1475-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Dcit, Central Circle -3(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Ten Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Different Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai 20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Id.Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of The Orders Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(3), Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ao”], U/S.153C R.W.S 143(3)/143(3)/270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] For The Assessment Years (“Ay/Ays”) 2017-18 To 2021-22. These Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Assessment Orders Passed U/S.153C R.W.S.143(3)/143(3) Of The Act, Whereas The Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Penalty Orders Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Five Assessment Years Under Consideration Are Identical In Nature & The Arguments Advanced By Both The Parties Are Common, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. We Shall First Address The Quantum Assessments.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

quantum assessment as detailed above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74 ... requirement of issuing a valid and precise notice is not a mere procedural formality but goes to the very root of jurisdiction for levy of penalty. A defective notice cannot confer valid jurisdiction upon the AO to impose penalty. 71. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1807/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

quantum assessment as detailed above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74 ... requirement of issuing a valid and precise notice is not a mere procedural formality but goes to the very root of jurisdiction for levy of penalty. A defective notice cannot confer valid jurisdiction upon the AO to impose penalty. :-13-: ITA. Nos:1801 to 1810/Chny/2025 71. We find that

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1806/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

quantum assessment as detailed above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74 ... requirement of issuing a valid and precise notice is not a mere procedural formality but goes to the very root of jurisdiction for levy of penalty. A defective notice cannot confer valid jurisdiction upon the AO to impose penalty. :-13-: ITA. Nos:1801 to 1810/Chny/2025 71. We find that

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1805/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

quantum assessment as detailed above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74 ... requirement of issuing a valid and precise notice is not a mere procedural formality but goes to the very root of jurisdiction for levy of penalty. A defective notice cannot confer valid jurisdiction upon the AO to impose penalty. :-13-: ITA. Nos:1801 to 1810/Chny/2025 71. We find that

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1804/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

quantum assessment as detailed above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74 ... requirement of issuing a valid and precise notice is not a mere procedural formality but goes to the very root of jurisdiction for levy of penalty. A defective notice cannot confer valid jurisdiction upon the AO to impose penalty. :-13-: ITA. Nos:1801 to 1810/Chny/2025 71. We find that

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1803/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

quantum assessment as detailed above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74 ... requirement of issuing a valid and precise notice is not a mere procedural formality but goes to the very root of jurisdiction for levy of penalty. A defective notice cannot confer valid jurisdiction upon the AO to impose penalty. :-13-: ITA. Nos:1801 to 1810/Chny/2025 71. We find that

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

ITA 1802/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 & 1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021 -22 & 2017-18 To 2021-22 Chungath Varghese Sunny, 275-276, Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan:Ageps-1475-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Ten Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Different Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai 20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Id.Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of The Orders Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(3), Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ao”], U/S.153C R.W.S 143(3)/143(3)/270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] For The Assessment Years (“Ay/Ays”) 2017-18 To 2021-22. These Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Assessment Orders Passed U/S.153C R.W.S.143(3)/143(3) Of The Act, Whereas The Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Penalty Orders Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Five Assessment Years Under Consideration Are Identical In Nature & The Arguments Advanced By Both The Parties Are Common, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. We Shall First Address The Quantum Assessments.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

quantum assessment as detailed above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74 ... requirement of issuing a valid and precise notice is not a mere procedural formality but goes to the very root of jurisdiction for levy of penalty. A defective notice cannot confer valid jurisdiction upon the AO to impose penalty. 71. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1801/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

quantum assessment as detailed above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74 ... requirement of issuing a valid and precise notice is not a mere procedural formality but goes to the very root of jurisdiction for levy of penalty. A defective notice cannot confer valid jurisdiction upon the AO to impose penalty. :-13-: ITA. Nos:1801 to 1810/Chny/2025 71. We find that

Thomas Victor, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 19(6), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2987/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mr.R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 271D

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "Ld.CIT(A)"], dated 11.10.2024, whereby the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty amounting to ₹67,01,050/- u/s.271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. Thomas Victor ... outset, it is noted that assessee has raised, inter alia, legal issue challenging the levy of penalty, which reads as under: “That the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), dated 31.03.2022, by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward–19(6), Chennai

Mahesh Ratilal Ganatra, United Kinddom vs. The DCIT, Circle International Taxation-1(3)(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2125/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, SR.DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 272A(1)(d)

order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42 [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 03.01.2025, for Assessment Year 2018-19 confirming levy of penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. A penalty of Rs.10,000/- has been levied ... r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144C(iii) of the Act vide assessment order dated 30.05.2023. The CIT(A) rejected submissions of the assessee and confirmed levy of penalty u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act. 3. Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for upholding

Saradambika Power Plant (P) Ltd, Srikakulam vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/VIZ/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsaradambika Power Plant (P) Ltd., Plot No.15, Konna Street, Radha Krishna Nagar Colony, Srikakulam. Andhra Pradesh - 532001 ............... Appellant Pan: Aajcs5970R V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), ……………… Respondent Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3Section 40A(3)Section 43B

thus, such notice is invalid. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative ... available on record. 8. In the present case, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs.90,60,642/-. From the perusal of the notice dated 31.08.2015 issued under section 274 read with section

Nmc Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) CC2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5215/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

those purchases, which worked out to ₹1,25,56,040. It is this estimated addition that has now formed the basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). 6. The Assessing Officer thereafter levied penalty of ₹42,67,797 alleging that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars ... present case rests entirely upon a presumptive addition and cannot therefore be upheld. 10. In these circumstances, we hold that the levy of penalty on an estimated addition of gross profit is both unjustified and unsustainable. The assessee had disclosed full particulars of its income, the books were duly audited