← 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

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

536/SRT/2025/AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 & 2012-13 Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Tulsi Jewellers, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer - Ward 5, Navsari

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 947/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.946 & 947/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Tulsi Jewellers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 7-8, Saibaba Complex Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Gauaarbag, Nr Lmp School Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Chikhli Roa Bilimora, Tal: Navsari-396 445 Gandevi-396 321 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakft 8368 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

result assessee's appeal is allowed. ITA N0.947/SRT/2024 10. Since the reassessment has been quashed, there is no basis at all for levy of penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act. Therefore, the impugned penalty u/s 271AAC would not survive. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

Tulsi Jewellers, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Navsari

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 946/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.946 & 947/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Tulsi Jewellers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 7-8, Saibaba Complex Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Gauaarbag, Nr Lmp School Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Chikhli Roa Bilimora, Tal: Navsari-396 445 Gandevi-396 321 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakft 8368 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

result assessee's appeal is allowed. ITA N0.947/SRT/2024 10. Since the reassessment has been quashed, there is no basis at all for levy of penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act. Therefore, the impugned penalty u/s 271AAC would not survive. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy, . Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 71/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Vs. Dcit, Limited, Dobiriyal Complex Gole Central Circle-1, Lucknow Market Mahanagar, Lucknow Pan: Aaccj0525G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.11.2024 Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 4.06.2019, Passed Under Section 271(1)(C). The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Both Law & Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Penalty Of 2,20,41,900/- Levied By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That: A. The Appellant Has Neither Concealed The Particulars Of Its Income Nor Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income; B. There Was No Failure On The Part Of The Appellant In Truly & Fully Disclosing All Material Facts C. Mere Disallowance Or Rejection Of The Claim Or Stand Taken By The Appellant Based On Reasonable Interpretation Of The Law Is Not Sufficient To Attract Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) 3. The Amount Of Penalty Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Invalid, Excessive & Unreasonable.”

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

held that he had no option but to conclude that the assessee company had nothing to say in this regard and therefore, he levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs.2,20,41,900/- @ 100% tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by such order ... disprove the findings of the ld. AO, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was fit to be upheld. Therefore, she confirmed the levy of penalty of Rs.2,20,41,900/- and dismissed the appeal against the said assessment. 3 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s Jupiter Tradelinks

Kobsai Hospitallities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 291/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

provisions of law, the same be deleted.” “01. Because the CIT(A), NFAC, has erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.1,51,50,193/-under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which penalty is bad in law, in as much as, there ... observed that the assessee had not filed any appeal in respect of the assessment before the appellate authority and therefore, he proceeded to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs.1,51,50,193/-. 5. Aggrieved by such levy of penalty, the assessee went in appeal

Kobsai Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 290/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

provisions of law, the same be deleted.” “01. Because the CIT(A), NFAC, has erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.1,51,50,193/-under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which penalty is bad in law, in as much as, there ... observed that the assessee had not filed any appeal in respect of the assessment before the appellate authority and therefore, he proceeded to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs.1,51,50,193/-. 5. Aggrieved by such levy of penalty, the assessee went in appeal

Pradeep Kumar Jhamumal Jethani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissoner of Income Tax, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

ITA 3910/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhrimr. Pradeep Kumar V/S. Commissioner Of Jhamulal Jethani Income Tax (Appeals) 203, Quantum Park Chs National Faceless Ltd, Appeal Centre (Nfac), Union Park, Khar Gulab Delhi Nagar, Dcit Circle 23(1) Opp. Olive Restaurant, Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Khar (West), Pavel, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapj8162G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. M SubramnaimFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (SR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O based on the assessment order under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. We find

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5674/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: None
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

even though assessee furnished inaccurate particulars c: income., and did not submit any new facts/material to substantiate its claim for non-levy of penalty ?" 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in saw, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty levied ... facts on record, pendency of appeal by the assessee before the Hon’ble High Court on quantum addition which forms the basis for levy of penalty by admitting substantial question of law as well as judicial precedents referred above, we hold that penalty under section

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5673/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: None
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

even though assessee furnished inaccurate particulars c: income., and did not submit any new facts/material to substantiate its claim for non-levy of penalty ?" 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in saw, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty levied ... facts on record, pendency of appeal by the assessee before the Hon’ble High Court on quantum addition which forms the basis for levy of penalty by admitting substantial question of law as well as judicial precedents referred above, we hold that penalty under section

Venket Raman Narlwar, Throughout L/H Dr. Pratima Raman, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer -2, Katni

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/JAB/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshradr. Pratima Raman (L/H Of V. Income Tax Officer-2 Venket Raman Narlwar Aayakar Bhawan, Sahkarita Maryadit) Jhinjhari, Katni-483501. Venket Building Lalita Bhawan, Sawarkar Ward, Katni-483501. Pan:Abhpn5492K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 12.02.2025 Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

amend any ground of the appeal.” (B) The only grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal is against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Page 2 of 3 (B.1) The Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, amounting

Dinesh Jat, Sagar vs. CIT(A), NFAC

ITA 196/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

time of either the assessment or the appeal pertaining to the assessment. Now, for the first time, during the appeal proceedings against levy of penalty, the assessee had made such submissions, which essentially makes the case on issues taken up in the appeal against A.Y. 2013-14 Dinesh

Dinesh Jat, Sagar vs. CIT (A), Sagar

ITA 195/JAB/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

time of either the assessment or the appeal pertaining to the assessment. Now, for the first time, during the appeal proceedings against levy of penalty, the assessee had made such submissions, which essentially makes the case on issues taken up in the appeal against A.Y. 2013-14 Dinesh

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 168/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

reasons ,rather than any negligence on his part. Be that as it may, we cannot fail to consider the fact that since the levy of penalty under section 271 AAC (1) is contingent upon the making of an addition that is chargeable according to the provisions of section 115BBE ... compliance to the notices under section 142(1) while restoring the assessment back to the file of the ld. AO, the levy of penalty for non- A.Y. 2018-19 Amit Kumar Yadav compliance to the five notices under section 142(1) cannot be sustained in the light of our findings

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 166/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

reasons ,rather than any negligence on his part. Be that as it may, we cannot fail to consider the fact that since the levy of penalty under section 271 AAC (1) is contingent upon the making of an addition that is chargeable according to the provisions of section 115BBE ... compliance to the notices under section 142(1) while restoring the assessment back to the file of the ld. AO, the levy of penalty for non- A.Y. 2018-19 Amit Kumar Yadav compliance to the five notices under section 142(1) cannot be sustained in the light of our findings

G.S.Express Pvt.Ltd, Lucknow vs. DCIT-CC-2, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is held to be partly allowed

ITA 633/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Private Ltd., C-877 Vs. The D. Commissioner Of Income Mahanagar, Lucknow Tax, P.K. Complex, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aaccg5655J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Imposing A Penalty Under Section 271B On 29.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-3, Lucknow Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Considering That The Show Cause Notice U/S 271B Of 1. T. Act Dated 31.12.2019, Did Not Specify That Whether The Penalty Is For Failure To Get Accounts Audited Or Failure To Furnish The Report & Thus Non Striking Of Irrelevant Clause Renders The Penalty Notice Invalid As Also The Consequential Penalty Order As Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Above 2-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- U/S 2718 Of 1. T. Act, Without Appreciating That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Delay In Audit & Obtaining Report U/S 44Ab Of It Act As Due To Search & Seizure On 01.02.2018 The Entire Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing. 3-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Did Not Appreciate That Books Of Accounts & Related Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing & Only After Obtaining Copy Of Seized Documents

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

been accepted and therefore, it was evident that the Audit Report that had been prepared and filed, was accurate. In the circumstances, the levy of penalty was unjustified. Furthermore, it was argued that the penalty suffered from a technical flaw. The penalty under section 271B could be imposed ... Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgo Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 171 taxman 156 had held that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the permission being unclear, penalty was not sustainable. It was further argued that

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/HYD/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

facts in failing to appreciate that even assuming without admitting that the transactions in question fall within the purview of Section 269SS, the levy of penalty under Section 271D is discretionary and not automatic, and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty was wholly ... made the reference. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issued the Show Cause Notice only on 10.11.2017 (nearly a year later) proposing the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. The Penalty Order was made on 22.02.2018. If the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

facts in failing to appreciate that even assuming without admitting that the transactions in question fall within the purview of Section 269SS, the levy of penalty under Section 271D is discretionary and not automatic, and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty was wholly ... made the reference. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issued the Show Cause Notice only on 10.11.2017 (nearly a year later) proposing the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. The Penalty Order was made on 22.02.2018. If the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 576/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

facts in failing to appreciate that even assuming without admitting that the transactions in question fall within the purview of Section 269SS, the levy of penalty under Section 271D is discretionary and not automatic, and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty was wholly ... made the reference. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issued the Show Cause Notice only on 10.11.2017 (nearly a year later) proposing the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. The Penalty Order was made on 22.02.2018. If the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

facts in failing to appreciate that even assuming without admitting that the transactions in question fall within the purview of Section 269SS, the levy of penalty under Section 271D is discretionary and not automatic, and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty was wholly ... made the reference. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issued the Show Cause Notice only on 10.11.2017 (nearly a year later) proposing the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. The Penalty Order was made on 22.02.2018. If the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings

Arusuvai Food Processors Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(c)Section 271Section 41(1)

Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO‘) dated 26.09.2022. Arusuvai Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that levy of penalty u/s.270A(9)(a) of the Act is bad in law, since the AO failed to record his satisfaction in the body of the assessment ... u/s.270A of Arusuvai Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. :: 5 :: the Act for having underreported his income which is foundational requirement of law, without which, levy of penalty is legally untenable and relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of PCIT v. Golden