← 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

Ashok Sumanlal Vakharia - HUF, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 31.1.2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4313/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.5112402/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2524/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’]. As common issue-in- dispute of levy of penalty for non-auditing of the books of accounts is involved in all these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed ... penalty, the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13 is taken as a lead year. The effective ground is grievance against levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short ‘the Act’). For ready reference, the grounds raised in the appeal No. 2522/Mum/2025

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2523/MUM/2025[2016-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-15
Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)']. As common issue-in- dispute of levy of penalty for non-auditing of the books of accounts is involved in all these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed ... penalty, the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13 is taken as a lead year. The effective ground is grievance against levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short 'the Act'). For ready reference, the grounds raised in the appeal No. 2522/Mum/2025

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2522/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13
Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)']. As common issue-in- dispute of levy of penalty for non-auditing of the books of accounts is involved in all these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed ... penalty, the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13 is taken as a lead year. The effective ground is grievance against levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short 'the Act'). For ready reference, the grounds raised in the appeal No. 2522/Mum/2025

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2521/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15
Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)']. As common issue-in- dispute of levy of penalty for non-auditing of the books of accounts is involved in all these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed ... penalty, the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13 is taken as a lead year. The effective ground is grievance against levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). For ready reference, the grounds raised in the appeal No. 2522/Mum/2025

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2520/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)']. As common issue-in- dispute of levy of penalty for non-auditing of the books of accounts is involved in all these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed ... penalty, the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13 is taken as a lead year. The effective ground is grievance against levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short 'the Act'). For ready reference, the grounds raised in the appeal No. 2522/Mum/2025

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2519/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’]. As common issue-in- dispute of levy of penalty for non-auditing of the books of accounts is involved in all these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed ... penalty, the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13 is taken as a lead year. The effective ground is grievance against levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short ‘the Act’). For ready reference, the grounds raised in the appeal No. 2522/Mum/2025

Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs. DCIT(Central)-2, Indore

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

submission. However, we find that the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 28/02/2020 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without dealing with the aforesaid submission of the assessee. In further appeal before the Tribunal ... section 271AAB of the Act is self-contained. It is worthy to note that, on one hand, the sub section (1) thereof authorises levy of penalty on undisclosed income where the proceedings u/s 132 of the Act is initiated, and on the other hand the sub-section (2) puts

Jagdishkumar Amrutlal Thakar, Patan vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward -3, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 984/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

984/Ahd/2025 Jagdish Amrutlal Thakar vs. ITO Asst. Year –2010-11 - 6– 11. ITA 984/Ahd/2025 pertains to the assessee’s appeal against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which came to be confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 12. Since, we have allowed the appeal of the assessee ... with respect to quantum additions, accordingly, the levy of penalty in respect of these quantum additions is no longer sustainable. 13. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/08/2025

Manishkumar Ramlakhan Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Ooficer, Ward 6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 920/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

compliance and rejected the explanation given by the assessee on the ground that it was an afterthought and thereby levied a penalty of ₹20,000/- (₹10,000/- for each default). 4. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the non- compliance was neither wilful nor deliberate ... provided, coupled with the overall conduct of the assessee, does constitute a reasonable cause. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the levy of penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, in the present case, is not justified. 6. Accordingly, we direct that the penalty

Jagdish Amrutlal Thakar, Patan, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward -3, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

984/Ahd/2025 Jagdish Amrutlal Thakar vs. ITO Asst. Year –2010-11 - 6– 11. ITA 984/Ahd/2025 pertains to the assessee’s appeal against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which came to be confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 12. Since, we have allowed the appeal of the assessee ... with respect to quantum additions, accordingly, the levy of penalty in respect of these quantum additions is no longer sustainable. 13. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/08/2025

Maheshkumar Laljidas Patel, Visnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Patan, Patan

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

ITA 1021/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Income Tax Officer Maheshkumar Laljidas Patel, Vs. Ward-1, Market Yard Visnagar, Patan. Visnagar-384315. [Pan :Agtpp7220 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vipul Gohil, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 271DSection 271ESection 274

sustainable, then penalty u/s 271E could not survive. It be held so. …..” 3. The order in the case of the assessee pertaining to levy of penalty u/s 271D stands remanded to the JCIT for de novo proceedings. Since, in the instant case, the proceedings u/s 271D & 271E are interrelated ... fitness of things, the matter is remanded to the file of the JCIT for de novo proceedings for levy of penalty or for dropping off the penalty proceedings after considering the submissions/reply of the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Brijlaxmi Paper Products Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 853/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 853/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Brijlaxmi Paper Products Pvt. Limited,……..Appellant 686, Shrachi Tower, Anandapur Em Byepass, Kolkata-700107 [Pan:Aafcb2003G] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Chatterjee, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270A

assessee had made misreporting of income to the extent of Rs.1,51,233/- and opined that it was a fit case to levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer determined the tax which sought to be evaded to the extent of Rs.50

Dwarakanathan Vinod, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2092/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. V. Srinithi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271

totally unaware that the appellate proceedings got concluded. 7. The Petitioner states that he had received a notice dated 23.06.2025 for levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (C). Only this notice was served to the Petitioner's correct email id vinod18march@yahoo.com. The Petitioner states on receipt of the notice

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada vs. Eswara Prasad Nadipalli, Vijayawada

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270A

assessed wasbased on the information available with the department which is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, which leads to levy of Penalty u/s.270A of the I.T.Act, where no return of income has been furnished as per provisions of section

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

ITA 294/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Venkateswara Nagar Syamalanagar East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry - 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Smt Hemalatha K, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 05.08.2025 22.08.2025

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

absence of any satisfaction being recorded bythe Ld. Assessing Officer in his order passed u/s 153C r.W.s 143(3) to initiate levy of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act. 4. Ld.PCIT ought to have appreciated that the levy or non-levy of penalty is at the discretion of Ld.AO ... several cases. 5. Ld.PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the IT Act for the sole reason to initiate levy of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact that penalty proceedings is different from assessment proceedings and theunderlying assessment order cannot be revised

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 293/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

absence of any satisfaction being recorded bythe Ld. Assessing Officer in his order passed u/s 153C r.W.s 143(3) to initiate levy of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act. 4. Ld.PCIT ought to have appreciated that the levy or non-levy of penalty is at the discretion of Ld.AO ... several cases. 5. Ld.PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the IT Act for the sole reason to initiate levy of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact that penalty proceedings is different from assessment proceedings and theunderlying assessment order cannot be revised

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohan Rao Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Cirlce - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

absence of any satisfaction being recorded bythe Ld. Assessing Officer in his order passed u/s 153C r.W.s 143(3) to initiate levy of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act. 4. Ld.PCIT ought to have appreciated that the levy or non-levy of penalty is at the discretion of Ld.AO ... several cases. 5. Ld.PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the IT Act for the sole reason to initiate levy of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact that penalty proceedings is different from assessment proceedings and theunderlying assessment order cannot be revised

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

absence of any satisfaction being recorded bythe Ld. Assessing Officer in his order passed u/s 153C r.W.s 143(3) to initiate levy of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act. 4. Ld.PCIT ought to have appreciated that the levy or non-levy of penalty is at the discretion of Ld.AO ... several cases. 5. Ld.PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the IT Act for the sole reason to initiate levy of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact that penalty proceedings is different from assessment proceedings and theunderlying assessment order cannot be revised

Shalom Charitable Ministries of India, Palakkad vs. ITO (Exemption), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee as well as stay application is dismissed

ITA 544/COCH/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

Assessee has not disputed the findings returned by NFAC that the Ld. CIT(A), Thrissur has, vide Order dated 09/08/2019, confirmed the levy of penalty of INR.1,00,000/- under Section 271B of the Act. Thus, the appeal dismissed by the CIT(A) was in effect a duplicate appeal