← 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

Mangesh D Gaikar, Kalyan West vs. ACIT Central Circle-2 Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5074/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarshri Mangesh D. Gaikar, V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Mangeshi बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Sahara, Near Chhatri 2, Thane,6Th Floor, A- Wing, Bunglow, Chikanghar, Kalyan Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, West - 421301, Maharashtra Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane(W) – 400 604, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afapg5995H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

find any infirmity in the appellate P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2015-16 Mangesh D. Gaikar order and hereby uphold the levy of penalty under the deeming provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 4206/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3953 और 4206 /िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Gautam Jain, Parth Singhal & Ankit Kumar, Advocates
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4

have held the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act to be invalid, the substratum for levy of penalty u/s. 27(1)(c) of the Act has eroded. Therefore, the penalty levied on the additions made in the aforesaid assessment order does not survive

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 3953/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3953 और 4206 /िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Gautam Jain, Parth Singhal & Ankit Kumar, Advocates
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4

have held the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act to be invalid, the substratum for levy of penalty u/s. 27(1)(c) of the Act has eroded. Therefore, the penalty levied on the additions made in the aforesaid assessment order does not survive

Tara Health Foods Limited, Malerkotla vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, ITA No.1036/CHD/2013 is partly allowed, whereas ITA No

ITA 754/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1036/Chd/2013 & Ita 754/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Tara Health Foods Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Village Jitwal Kalan, Central Circle-1, Tehsil – Malerkotla. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacct3940R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Ms.Deepali Aggarwal,Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms.Deepali Aggarwal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 271D

loan and repayment of loan in cash in the hands of M/s Muez Hest Process Tech (P) Ltd. but CIT (Appeals) has deleted levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) have been upheld by the ITAT Mumbai Bench, whose

Tara Health Foods Ltd., Malerkotla vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, ITA No.1036/CHD/2013 is partly allowed, whereas ITA No

ITA 1036/CHANDI/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1036/Chd/2013 & Ita 754/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Tara Health Foods Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Village Jitwal Kalan, Central Circle-1, Tehsil – Malerkotla. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacct3940R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Ms.Deepali Aggarwal,Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms.Deepali Aggarwal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 271D

loan and repayment of loan in cash in the hands of M/s Muez Hest Process Tech (P) Ltd. but CIT (Appeals) has deleted levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) have been upheld by the ITAT Mumbai Bench, whose

Pathanna Thippe Swamy, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 101/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(3)Section 271A

also submitted to him. Meanwhile on 1.1.2025 the assessee received a letter by Registered Post which is a show-cause notice for levy of penalty u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act. On receipt of the notice, the assessee contacted Mr. Vishwanath for preparing a reply. However, Mr. Vishwanath

Kaycee Finstock Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6688/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekaycee Finstock Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 7Th 705, Floor, Maker Tax -2(1)(1), Mumbai Chamber V, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan : Aacck6191P Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi– Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

preceding years, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Ld. AO shall thereafter adjudicate the issue of levy of penalty in accordance with law, considering the above observations. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard

Mahesh Gupta, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/NAG/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Revenue by
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Nagpur, [for short, "learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2005-06, challenging the levy of penalty under section under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 2 Mahesh Gupta ITA no.75/Nag./2025 ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act”) for concealment of income “or” furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which resulted into levy of penalty of = 7,46,117, for concealment of income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Full Bench in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v/s ACIT

Bee Gee Construction Co, Zirakpur vs. ACIT, Cir-3(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 599/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80

other ground has been urged in the appeal. The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. This is penalty appeal assailing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.53.66 Lacs for wrong claim made by the assessee u/s 80-IB(10). The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed

Bee Gee Construction Co, Zirakpur vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 598/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80

other ground has been urged in the appeal. The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. This is penalty appeal assailing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.53.66 Lacs for wrong claim made by the assessee u/s 80-IB(10). The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed

Upenkumar Amrutji Vihol, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2)(Previously ITO, Ward-1, Anand), Vadodara

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

ITA 556/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Manan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

assessee against quantum additions sustained by Ld. CIT(A), while ITA Nos. 555/Ahd/2025 and 556/Ahd/2025 are appeals filed by the assessee against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards concealment of income and under Section 271F of the Act on account of non-filing ... have erred in law and in fact in confirming the levy of penalty U/s. 271F of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have erred in law and in fact in confirming the levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The appellant

Upenkumar Amrutji Vihol, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2)(Previously ITO, Ward-1, Anand), Vadodara

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

ITA 555/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Manan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

assessee against quantum additions sustained by Ld. CIT(A), while ITA Nos. 555/Ahd/2025 and 556/Ahd/2025 are appeals filed by the assessee against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards concealment of income and under Section 271F of the Act on account of non-filing ... have erred in law and in fact in confirming the levy of penalty U/s. 271F of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have erred in law and in fact in confirming the levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The appellant

Upenkumar Amrutji Vihol, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 554/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Manan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

assessee against quantum additions sustained by Ld. CIT(A), while ITA Nos. 555/Ahd/2025 and 556/Ahd/2025 are appeals filed by the assessee against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards concealment of income and under Section 271F of the Act on account of non-filing ... have erred in law and in fact in confirming the levy of penalty U/s. 271F of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have erred in law and in fact in confirming the levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The appellant

Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pmt Building, Swargate, Pune

ITA 1137/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, 3 Lt Col Tarapore Road, Camp, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaats4768F Appellant/ Assessee V The Dy.Commissioner Of S. Income Tax Exemption, Pune. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.02.2025 For A.Y.2017-18 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 18.01.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 11(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(10)(c)

under section 270A of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has underreported the income. 2. Ground 2: Levy of Penalty under section 270A of the Act is invalid since the tax payable in respect of under-reported income Is Nil In the facts and circumstances of the case ... excess application of income beyond the prescribed threshold of 85% under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Consequently, the very foundation for levy of penalty stands vitiated. 3. Ground 3: Accounting Reclassifications do not constitute Underreporting of Income In the facts and circumstances of the case

Urmila Kishan, Angul vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 191/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

income in the financial statements. Appellant has taken loan from relative occasionally and pay it back after completion of purpose. 6. Erroneous Levy of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271AAC. The initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC is bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case

Guru Nanak Agenicies, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 570/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Guru Nanak Agencies, The Income Tax Officer, V. 119/561, Darshanpurwa, Ward-1(2)(1) Kanpur-208012. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aaafg6654J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(2)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Because the CIT(A)/NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Act, 1961, which penalty is bad in law, be deleted. 2. Because there being no default

Crystal Thermotech Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner Pf Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 80/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Karnataka High Court in CIT & Anr. vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) wherein the court had enshrined that levy of penalty is altogether different from assessment procedures. The penalty cannot be levied in a routine manner. The principles of natural justice must be followed wherein the notice ... served on the assessee must clearly and unambiguously specify the charge on which the Department proposes to levy the penalty so that the assessee can be ready with his defence and prepare his case and submissions accordingly. 7. In view thereof, even without going into the merits of the extant

Crystal Thermotech Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 79/RAN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Karnataka High Court in CIT & Anr. vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) wherein the court had enshrined that levy of penalty is altogether different from assessment procedures. The penalty cannot be levied in a routine manner. The principles of natural justice must be followed wherein the notice ... served on the assessee must clearly and unambiguously specify the charge on which the Department proposes to levy the penalty so that the assessee can be ready with his defence and prepare his case and submissions accordingly. 7. In view thereof, even without going into the merits of the extant

L K Sons Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-9, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Diksha AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order dated 08.02.2019 observing as under: “2. The grounds of appeal object to levy of penalty of Rs. 14,53,890/- u/s. 271(1)(c). During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed from the quantitative details

Chaitali Hotels, Kolhapur vs. CIT(A)-11, Pune

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

ITA 1846/PUN/2024[AY-2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Chaitali Hotels Cit(A)-11, Pune 257, Kadamwadi Road, Vs. Kolhapur – 416005 Pan: Aagfc8348F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

response to the same filed the reply. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and levied the penalty of Rs.3,12,880/- being 200% of tax payable on underreported income in consequence of misreporting by recording as under: “6.1 In the present ... proceedings in this case, one by the assessing officer and one by the CIT(A). Now, the issue arises as to who can levy the penalty u/s 270A of the Act, and on which portion of underreported income. This issue has been elaborately discussed by the Pune Bench