← 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

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 872/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai 'F' Bench M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited Summary Of Penalty Appeals Sr. No. Nature Of Addition/ Disallowance Ay 2011-12 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2013-14 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2015-16 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2017-18 U/S 271Aab Ay 2018-19 U/S 271Aab (Amt In Inr) Total Addition Made U/S 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 37Section 69ASection 69C

ITAT in their quantum orders 3 ITA No. 871/Mum/2025 and others Viraj Profiles Private Limited 3. Thus, all these appeals assailed the levy of penalty across multiple assessment years u/s.271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessments emanate from common spectrum of the facts spanning ... levy penalty on the addition so sustained. 7. The assessee, both before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), stoutly contested the levy of penalty. It was emphasised that the guarantees were extended only as part of a group support arrangement, a common feature in multinational enterprises where the parent

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 871/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

which has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- 3. Thus, all these appeals assailed the levy of penalty across multiple assessment years u/s.271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessments emanate from common spectrum of the facts spanning into impugned assessment ... levy penalty on the addition so sustained. 7. The assessee, both before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), stoutly contested the levy of penalty. It was emphasised that the guarantees were extended only as part of a group support arrangement, a common feature in multinational enterprises where the parent

M/S Himalayan Vacations, P. Ltd., Nanital vs. ACIT, Haldwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Himalayan Vacations Private Acit, Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), 01, Himalayan Vacations Private Vs. Haldawani. Limited, Tallital, Nainital-263002. Pan:Aacch5584P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274Section 9

under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. 2 IT No.43/DDN/2025 M/s Himalayan Vacations Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Thereafter, the AO has levied the penalty u/s 270A(9)(a) of the Act of Rs.3,56,478/- being 200% of the tax payable on such income for under reporting of income ... order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee all the grounds taken by the assessee are in respect to the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act thus they are taken together for consideration. 5. Before us, the Ld.AR submits that from the perusal of show

Basantilal Tarba, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-3(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.512/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Bansntilal Tarba Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), बनाम/ 429/1023, Sundarnagar, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Ahimsa Circle, Bhilwara, Surat-395 001 Rajasthan- 311 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afipt 1037 P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

appeal; 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.24,05,63,853/- in respect of estimation of income made in assessment of Rs.77,86,80,706/- @ 25% of accommodation ... transactions; 4.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is erroneous since the initiation of penalty, in the assessment order, had been made “for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”, whereas the penalty has ultimately been levied on altogether different

Mls Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Trichy vs. ITO, Circle-1 TDS, Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1903/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymls Enterprises Private Limited, I.T.O., No. C-17, 3Rd Cross N.E.E. Vs. Circle-1, Tds, Thillainagar Trichy-620018 Chennai. (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aaicm 2477 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 200ASection 234E

order passed under Section 200A of the Act is erroneous on the fact that there is no enabling provision under Section 200A for levy of penalty under Section 234E of the Act prior to 01/06/2015. The ld. AR submitted that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015 with regard to levy

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1217/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Redington Distribution Pte. Ltd. :: 7 :: 7. It is well-settled jurisprudence that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings. The levy of penalty is also not automatic and only because any addition/disallowance has been made in an assessment does not ipso facto lead to imposition of penalty ... sec.274 of the Act. Admittedly, the AO issued notice u/s.274 r.w.s.270A of the Act. Sec.274 of the Act deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity

Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1216/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Redington Distribution Pte. Ltd. :: 7 :: 7. It is well-settled jurisprudence that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings. The levy of penalty is also not automatic and only because any addition/disallowance has been made in an assessment does not ipso facto lead to imposition of penalty ... sec.274 of the Act. Admittedly, the AO issued notice u/s.274 r.w.s.270A of the Act. Sec.274 of the Act deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1215/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Redington Distribution Pte. Ltd. :: 7 :: 7. It is well-settled jurisprudence that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings. The levy of penalty is also not automatic and only because any addition/disallowance has been made in an assessment does not ipso facto lead to imposition of penalty ... sec.274 of the Act. Admittedly, the AO issued notice u/s.274 r.w.s.270A of the Act. Sec.274 of the Act deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity

Maheshwarappa Muniramu, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Sri Nagaraj K. H., CAFor Respondent: Sri Subramaniam, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 244ASection 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

submitted that there is clear violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and therefore, the authorities below have rightly levied the penalty of Rs.20 lakhs and accordingly, the ld. D.R. prayed to dismiss the appeal of the assessee as no reasonable cause was demonstrated by the assessee ... cheque or demand transaction for some bona fide reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty had a discretion not to levy the penalty. 13. In Chamundi Granites (P.) Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court considered the provision of Section 271D and 273B of the Act and held

Madison Teamworks Film Promotions and Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3533/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2013-14 Madison Teamworks Film Deputy Commissioner Of Promotions & Entertainment Income Tax-10(2)(2), Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, 349 Business Point, M.K. Road, Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan : Aaecm1006B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Siddesh Chaugule & Ms. Manmeet Kaur Saini For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Siddesh Chaugule &For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 28-03-2025 wherein he has sustained the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 wherein the assessee has taken ... taxable in the hands of the assessee-company and hence, prayed to delete the penalty. 8 13. Further, on the issue of levy of penalty on disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act, it was again submitted that though the assessee didn‟t appeal against the addition

Oc Sweaters LLP, Mehrauli vs. Ward 29(5), New Delhi, Civic Centre

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

ITA 4363/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the AO wherein the correct figures of new workmen were filled in. The AO had not accepted the said report as it was not filed online as provided in section 80JJAA of the Act and deduction claimed was disallowed.

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 250Section 8Section 80J

appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 12. This appeal in ITA No.4363/Del/2025 is filed by assessee against the order of confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act on the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA of Rs.30,34,160/-. Since, we have already allowed the appeal

O.C Sweater LLP, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 3610/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 250Section 8Section 80J

appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 12. This appeal in ITA No.4363/Del/2025 is filed by assessee against the order of confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act on the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA of Rs.30,34,160/-. Since, we have already allowed the appeal

Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- Appeal, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2488/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 12ASection 147(3)Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 271ASection 271BSection 3Section 44A

further initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited. Thereafter, the AO proceeded to levy of penalty in terms of the order dated 20.11.2017 and penalty of Rs.25,000/- is levied u/s 271A of the Act for non- maintenance of books of accounts. 3. Against

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8405/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.3622 और 8405 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Wadwa, Shivam Garg & Harsh Raghav, &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 153D

vide order dated 13.08.2019. Since, we have held the assessment order for AY 2014-15 to be invalid, the substratum for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is eroded, hence, penalty proceedings would not survive. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

DCIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi vs. Aditya Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5199/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.3622 और 8405 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Wadwa, Shivam Garg & Harsh Raghav, &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 153D

vide order dated 13.08.2019. Since, we have held the assessment order for AY 2014-15 to be invalid, the substratum for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is eroded, hence, penalty proceedings would not survive. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3622/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.3622 और 8405 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Wadwa, Shivam Garg & Harsh Raghav, &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 153D

vide order dated 13.08.2019. Since, we have held the assessment order for AY 2014-15 to be invalid, the substratum for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is eroded, hence, penalty proceedings would not survive. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Kamuben Ramanlal Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

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

ITA 913/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kamble& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.913/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Smt. Kamuben Ramanlal Patel Income Tax Officer, Daman, बनाम/ House No.1, Varkund, Income Tax Department, Jeevanji Vs. Mithanagar, Nani Daman, Hotel Building, Kathiria Road, Daman & Diu-396 210 Nani Daman, Daman & Diu- -396210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acppk1885N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Hemant Suthar, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shriajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 in levying 100% penalty of Rs.52,46,160/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by Assessing Officer on 11.01.2021. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee ... fact that the Ld. AO has in the notice proposing the penalty as required u/s.274 has not specified the charge for the levy of penalty as to for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Moreover, Ld. AO has levied penalty on dual charges of concealment of income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Indore vs. Java Builders Pvt Ltd(Formerly Java Foods Pvt Ltd), Indore

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 279/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Java Builders Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax (Central)-2 (Formerly Java Foods Pvt. Ltd.), 16, Khajarana Square, बनाम/ Ghanshyam Castle, Vs. Opposite Subh Labh, Indore (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aaccj5636L Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 69B

Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged initiation of penalty proceedings and levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. 3.1.1 The appellant, to substantiate these grounds of appeal, has filed written submissions which are reproduced as under:- XXX 3.1.2 Through these grounds of appeal the appellant ... challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act on both legal and factual grounds. While examining the legal issue first, I observe that the notice u/s 274 dated 30.12.2018 issued by the AO for the initiation of penalty does not specify which limb of section 271AAB is being

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 525/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 276CSection 292B

notice therefore, a notice under section 142(1) was issued and upon the failure to comply, the Assessing Officer also issued notice for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b). Subsequently, a notice for best judgment assessment under section 144 was issued on 30.11.2016. In response to this notice

Conwood Construction and Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle - 1(4), Mumbai

ITA 4756/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 270(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in confirming levy of penalty despite the fact that the Assessing Officer failed to arrive at satisfaction during the course of assessment proceedings whether the levy of penalty ... furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, which constitutes the basis and foundation of the proceedings for levy of penalty, thereby making the notice dated 19.12.2017 levying penalty u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not in accordance with the provisions