← 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

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Nos.186 to 193/SRT/2024/AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18 24. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. 25. This appeal is against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO vide order dated 21.09.2022. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act were also ... held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is clearly attracted in this case

Jihas Abduljaleel, Kollam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Kollam

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

ITA 523/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jihas Abduljaleel .......... Appellant Shihas Manzil, Kannamkode, Kummil Post, Kollam [Pan: Blypa6333C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Shakunth Selvaraj, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 23.05.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That That Appellant Is An Individual, Engaged In The Business Of Livestock. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed By The Appellant. Therefore, The Ao Issued Notice U/S. 148 & 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act), Which Remained Uncomplied With By The Appellant. Subsequently

For Appellant: Shri Shakunth Selvaraj, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

response to the show cause notice the appellant had not even filed any explanation. In the circumstances, the AO had proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 40,000/- vide order dated 16.08.2024 passed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before ... vide the impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted that the notice issued by the AO went unnoticed by the appellant as he is an uneducated person and does not maintain

Sunil Kumar Nayak, Jhunjhunu vs. Dlc-C-(123)(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

reply filed by the assessee, levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- for not making timely compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1). Against the levy of penalty, the 3 Sunil Kumar Nayak, Jhunjhunu assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved from the order of AO, levy penalty preferred ... minor delay in replying to one of the notice is completely illegal. incorrect as well as against the principal of natural justice to levy a penalty under the provisions of section 272A(1) (d) of the act on the assessee. 8. In the penalty order it has been mentioned

Khaitan and Partners, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1610/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] is bad and imposed beyond the period prescribed u/s 275 of the Act. 3. Roots for levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 28.02.2015 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the return ... that the notice u/s 271(1)(c) has not specified the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the AO proposed to levy the penalty and produced the copy of notice. Per contra, the ld DR submitted that no prejudice is caused to the assessee. 8. We have heard

Vitasta Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 17(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1565/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

unsustainable in law and is fatally defective for not specifying the limb under which the penalty action has been initiated. 3. Roots for levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 23.10.2010 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the return ... 1565/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2008-09] Vitasta Estates Vs. ACIT specified the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the AO proposed to levy the penalty and produced the copy of notice. Per contra, the ld DR submitted that no prejudice is caused to the assessee. 7. We have heard

Thapar Homes Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 41/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 570, 571 & 41 /दिल्ली/2017 (नि.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: S/Shri Vikas Jain, Hardik Jayal, Nilesh Singh &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-23, New Delhi dated 17.02.2020, for AY 2009-10 confirming levy of penalty u/s.271AAA of the Act. 22 Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10) 35. for levy of penalty u/s.271AAA

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Thapar Homes Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1141/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 570, 571 & 41 /दिल्ली/2017 (नि.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: S/Shri Vikas Jain, Hardik Jayal, Nilesh Singh &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-23, New Delhi dated 17.02.2020, for AY 2009-10 confirming levy of penalty u/s.271AAA of the Act. 21 Thapar Homes Ltd. Group (AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10) 35. for levy of penalty u/s.271AAA

Baldev Singh, Jaswan Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, Himachal Pradesh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. In these twin appeals, the assessee assails levy of penalty of Rs.25,000/- u/s 271A and penalty of Rs.1,33,396/- u/s 271B of the Act for non-maintenance of books of accounts

Baldev Singh, Jaswan Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nurpur, Kangra

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 276/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. In these twin appeals, the assessee assails levy of penalty of Rs.25,000/- u/s 271A and penalty of Rs.1,33,396/- u/s 271B of the Act for non-maintenance of books of accounts

Rahul Jain S/O Shri Rakesh Jain, Gali Kanda Wali, Noharia Bazar, Sirsa, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sirsa

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1219/CHANDI/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Rahul Jain Dcit Ward-1 (S/O Shri Rakesh Jain) Sector 20, Huda बनाम/ Vs. Gali Kanda Wali Sirsa Nohara Bazar, Sirsa. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aorpj-8009-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur(Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 30-09-2024 Confirming Penalty Of Rs.98.07 Lacs U/S 271Aab As Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 12-03- 2018. The Registry Has Noted Minor Delay Of 19 Days In The Appeal Which Stands Condoned. The Ld. Ar, Drawing Attention To The Factual Matrix, Referred To Various Judicial Decisions To Assail The Impugned

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur(Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 274

which the undisclosed income was derived. During the course of penalty proceedings, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee proposing levy of penalty. Though the assessee assailed proposed penalty on the ground that sources of investment / cash were explained at the time of search, Ld. AO levied penalty ... same in the return of income. The returned income has duly been accepted by Ld. AO. However, the grievance of the assessee is levy of penalty u/s 271AAB. From impugned penalty order, it could be observed that during the course of penalty proceedings, notice u/s 274 was issued

Rajender Prasad Goel, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 12/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271D

dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2016-2017, thereby confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act 2. It was submitted by the Id AR that the assessee had sold a property. Admittedly the assessee had received ... cover of the cash transaction of Rs.2 lakhs or above, which are not covered in Section 269SS of the Act and provided the levy of penalty u/s.271DA of the Act for violation of provisions of Section 269ST of the Act. 12. In the instant case, the AO has invoked

Viswanathapillai Saranyadevi, Trivandrum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 508/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Viswanathapillai Saranyadevi .......... Appellant House No. 1, Kavery Gardens, Kurihathi Manacaud P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695009 [Pan: Dvfps6621L] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 148Section 2Section 271(1)(b)

vide order dated 10.09.2024. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty in the absence of any reasonable cause. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When ... suffering from cervical spondylitis and intervertebral disc prolapse and was under treatment from 30.03.2024 to 09.08.2024. The CIT(A), while confirming the levy of penalty had not taken into consideration this fact and merely confirmed the levy of penalty. The submission of the appellant that she was suffering from cervical

Panamaram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Panamaram, Wayanad vs. JCIT, Range-2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 433/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)

against the different orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 28.04.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16; confirming the levy of penalty made u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act respectively. 2. Since both the appeals involve identical facts and issues, the appeals were heard together ... provisions of section 269SS have no application. However, JCIT rejected the above explanation and proceeded with Panamaram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. levy of penalty of Rs. 45,64,02,929/-u/s. 271E of the Act vide order dated 26/07/2018. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of levy of penalty

Panamaram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Panamaram vs. JCIT, Range-2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 432/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)

against the different orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 28.04.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16; confirming the levy of penalty made u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act respectively. 2. Since both the appeals involve identical facts and issues, the appeals were heard together ... provisions of section 269SS have no application. However, JCIT rejected the above explanation and proceeded with Panamaram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. levy of penalty of Rs. 45,64,02,929/-u/s. 271E of the Act vide order dated 26/07/2018. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of levy of penalty

Malti Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 891/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmalti Agarwal, B 13B Girdhar Colony, Murlipura Thana Road, Jaipur 302 039 Pan No.: Aampa 1590K ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 4(3), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Dheeraj Borad, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Jcit Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Mr. Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 154Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee and in first appeal the Id. CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty. 3 Malti Agarwal 3. The correct facts of this case are that the assessee filed return of income on 25/04/2008 disclosing sale proceeds of the house

Jyoti Sharma, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Panchkula

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

ITA 192/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 245Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

held not maintainable and the same was dismissed. 5. I also refer to the order under section 250 passed in the context of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is available as part of the assessee’s paper book at page ... appeal and delay was condoned. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed another order under section 250 in the context of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act where again, for similar reasons the delay in filing the appeal was condoned

Mahesh Padmnabhrao Kashikar, Nanded vs. ITO Ward-1, Nanded

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

ITA 1472/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Ramesh N. TheteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessment order dated 21.03.2016 framed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act and ITA No.1472/PUN/2025 has been filed for A.Y. 2011-12 against the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs.3,09,853/-. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of about five months ... appeal pertaining to quantum addition in ITA No.1471/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2011-12 to the file of ld.CIT(A), the appeal relating to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for this very same assessment year is also restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) as the levy

Mahesh Padmnabhrao Kashikar, Nanded vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nanaded, Nanded

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

ITA 1471/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Ramesh N. TheteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessment order dated 21.03.2016 framed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act and ITA No.1472/PUN/2025 has been filed for A.Y. 2011-12 against the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs.3,09,853/-. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of about five months ... appeal pertaining to quantum addition in ITA No.1471/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2011-12 to the file of ld.CIT(A), the appeal relating to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for this very same assessment year is also restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) as the levy

Khodiyar Organisers, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Khodiyar Organisers, Vs. Acit, Central Plaza, Near Om Terrace, Circle – 2(3), New City Light Road, Surat – Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfk1498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

return. There is no addition over and above the income declared in the revised return. Hence, there was no concealment of income necessitating levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR relied on the following decision, viz., PCIT vs. Prabhjot Kaur Chhabra, 113 taxmann.com ... seen that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purpose of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation – 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In other words, if no addition or disallowance is made

Pooran Singh, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 196/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

amount of Rs. 58,525/- as per provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from these different order for levy of penalty the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding ... failure to comply with statutory notices issued. During the penalty proceedings also, the appellant was non-compliant and hence the AO levied the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4.2. The ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the appellant pertains to the single issue