← 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

Radha Chandrababu Panikar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

ITA 959/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Radha Chandrababu Income Tax Officer Panikar Ward-3(2)(9), Vs. 28, Ramnagar, Nr. Ambica Ahmedabad Tube Colony, Station Road, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382445 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apupp1233M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr 19/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Pertain To The Same Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12; While One Is Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(In Short “Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.03.2025 In Quantum Proceedings In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), The Other Appeal Lies Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Quantum Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings ... deposited in her bank account remaining unexplained in the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.958/Ahd/2025, therefore, there remains no basis at all for levying any penalty on the assessee for concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty so ITA Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 [Radha Chandrababu Panikar

Radha Chandrababu Panikar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

ITA 958/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Radha Chandrababu Income Tax Officer Panikar Ward-3(2)(9), Vs. 28, Ramnagar, Nr. Ambica Ahmedabad Tube Colony, Station Road, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382445 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apupp1233M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr 19/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Pertain To The Same Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12; While One Is Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(In Short “Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.03.2025 In Quantum Proceedings In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), The Other Appeal Lies Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Quantum Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings ... deposited in her bank account remaining unexplained in the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.958/Ahd/2025, therefore, there remains no basis at all for levying any penalty on the assessee for concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty so ITA Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 [Radha Chandrababu Panikar

Deepak Pawar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 43, Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 3552/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshdeepak Pawar, Vs. Acit, 4/47, First Floor, Circle-43, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Avapp4384P Assessee By : Ms. Ragini Handa, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Ragini Handa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

assessed income. 10. Accordingly Ground No. 21 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground No. 22 challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(i) of the Act would have no legs to stand in view of the order of the ld CIT(A) that section 115BBE

Surender Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Meerut

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2991/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 2948/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. This is an appeal against the confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) which is also been dismissed by the ld NFAC as not maintainable on the ground of delay. This appeal

Surender Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 2(5), Meerut

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2949/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 2948/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. This is an appeal against the confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) which is also been dismissed by the ld NFAC as not maintainable on the ground of delay. This appeal

Surender Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward - 2(5), Meerut

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2948/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 2948/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. This is an appeal against the confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) which is also been dismissed by the ld NFAC as not maintainable on the ground of delay. This appeal

Manish Chawla, Delhi vs. Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax/ Income-Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2587/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshmanish Chawla, Vs. Additional/ J-133, Saket, Joint/Deputy/Assistant New Delhi Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Income Tax Officer, New Delhi Pan:Aiqpc2510H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty on an estimated income in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. I have heard ... completed the assessment on 27.11.2018. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act stood initiated in the sum which culminated in levy of penalty vide order dated 16.03.2022 in the sum of Rs. 4,29,510/-. The addition made by the ld AO in the quantum proceedings were reduced

Chhaya Masurkar, Balaghat vs. NFAC, ITO Balaghat, Balaghat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless Appeal 1, Ward No. 9, Ram Mandir Center (Nfac) Road, Katangi, Balaghat (Mp)- Delhi (Jurisdiction Officer, 481445. Income Tax Officer, Balaghat (Mp)-110001. Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) 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 23.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 69A

facts and liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 5,45,849/- under section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act ie the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Cop Ward 2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

ITA 138/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

above order, assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the jurisdictional objection and challenged the levy of penalty. It was submitted that the additional ground should have been entertained in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Cop Ward 2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

ITA 137/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

above order, assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the jurisdictional objection and challenged the levy of penalty. It was submitted that the additional ground should have been entertained in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Cop Ward 2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

ITA 136/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

above order, assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the jurisdictional objection and challenged the levy of penalty. It was submitted that the additional ground should have been entertained in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Cop Ward 2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

ITA 135/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

above order, assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the jurisdictional objection and challenged the levy of penalty. It was submitted that the additional ground should have been entertained in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Cop Ward 2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

ITA 134/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

above order, assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the jurisdictional objection and challenged the levy of penalty. It was submitted that the additional ground should have been entertained in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative

Anju Singh, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 65/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Assessing Officer has passed a hasty order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without making good case for levy of penalty. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. (Order pronounced in the open court

Snehalkumar Bhogilal Trivedi, Gandhinagar vs. NFAC, Assessment Unit, Present Juris. the ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 740/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 740/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) बनाम/ Snehalkumar Bhogilal Nfac, Assessment Unit Trivedi – Present Jurisdiction - Vs. B-502, Radhe Helios, Income Tax Officer Reliance Chowkdi, Orbit Ward-3(3)(5), Mall, Kudasan, Ahmedabad Gandhinagar, Gujarat – 382421 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaxpt4034G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Pritesh Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274Section 54F

Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 31.03.2022 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year ... deletion of penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act. His contention primarily before us was that Section 270A of the Act provides for levy of penalty on two different accounts: i. “ under reporting” of income attracting penalty @50% of the tax payable on the unreported income; ii. “under reporting

Narayana Hrudayalaya Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

salary provision was detected. Had the same not been selected for scrutiny, the income would not have been assessed to tax. Further non levy of penalty would lead to injustice to the honest taxpayers. Accordingly minimum penalty of Rs.25,29,788 was levied for deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ... contention of the assessee that it is a debatable issue is not acceptable. He further supported the reasons given by the AO for levy of penalty and accordingly the penalty levied of Rs.25,29,788 was confirmed. The assessee who aggrieved with that order is in appeal before

Suresh Ukhchand Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 963/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

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

assessee, are directed against the separate impugned orders dated 17th December 2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2010‑11 and 2011‑12. Since the issues ... income or concealed any income. In such circumstances, where the additions are based solely on estimation without any direct evidence of concealment, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. 7. In the present case, the AO has applied an estimated GP rate of 12.5%, which

Suresh Ukhchand Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 962/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

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

assessee, are directed against the separate impugned orders dated 17th December 2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2010‑11 and 2011‑12. Since the issues ... income or concealed any income. In such circumstances, where the additions are based solely on estimation without any direct evidence of concealment, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. 7. In the present case, the AO has applied an estimated GP rate of 12.5%, which

Arti Shailen Topiwala, Andheri West, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra East

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4384/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

Should the delay be condoned, the examine in accordance with law. Should the delay be condoned, the Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy of penalty under Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy of penalty under Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy of penalty under section ... case and in law, the AO a) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in levying a penalty even before the assessment order was erred in levying a penalty even before the assessment order was erred in levying a penalty even before the assessment

Arti Shailen Topiwala, Andheri West, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra East

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4383/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

Should the delay be condoned, the examine in accordance with law. Should the delay be condoned, the Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy of penalty under Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy of penalty under Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the levy of penalty under section ... case and in law, the AO a) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in levying a penalty even before the assessment order was erred in levying a penalty even before the assessment order was erred in levying a penalty even before the assessment