← 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

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 691/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

KUMAR, J.M: These are appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Years

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 690/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

KUMAR, J.M: These are appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Years

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 689/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

KUMAR, J.M: These are appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Years

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Centeral Circle-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 688/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

KUMAR, J.M: These are appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act”] for the Assessment Years

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. Dcitl Central Circle-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 687/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

KUMAR, J.M: These are appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Years

Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai PAN (HUF), Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.958/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai Pan (Huf) The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) बनाम 703-, Pyramid Tower Rajkot. Bansi Park Vs. Amin Marg Rajkot 360 001. Pan : Aaohs 9548 F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.SR.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

false and as such question of initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, does not arise. In order to justify levy of penalty there must be some material or circumstances leading to reasonable conclusion that the Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai Pan (HUF) ITA No.958 /RJT/2024 ... Court of Gujarat has in the case of National Textiles vs. CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj) observed that "In order to justify the levy of penalty, two factors must co-exist, (i) there must be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable conclusion that the amount does represent

Mukesh Kumar, Ambala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5-Ambala, Ambala

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 20/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.20/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Mukesh Kumar Ito बनाम/ H.No. 252, Luxmi Nagar Ward-5 Vs. Jandli, Ambala City-134003. Ambala.134003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Arhpk-6384-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vineet Krishan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

assessee. The Ld. AO initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for failure to comply with hearing notice dated 08-08-2019 and levied impugned penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 3. During first appeal, the assessee drew attention to the fact that quantum appeal was restored back by Tribunal to the file ... received by the assessee. On these facts, the assessee could not be penalized and therefore, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, we delete the same. 5. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 02-06-2025. (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Mehta PENAL PROVISIONS ARE NOT ATTRACTED: 9. As per provisions of section 271 (J)(c) of the Income tax Act, for a just levy of penalty, there are some primary requirements that need to be fulfilled. Relevant provisions of the Act are as under: 10. Section ... income. He may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty. 11. From the above, it may be observed that the levy of penalty will be justified only when it is independently proved that there is concealment of income Or inaccurate particulars of income are furnished. 12. Further

Jharkhand Urjaa Sancharan Nigam Limited, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Ranchi

In the result, grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 49/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jharkhand Urjaa Sancharan Nigam I.T.O., Limited, Ward 1(4), Vs. Sldc Building, Ranchi-834002. Ranchi. Pan No. Aadcj 3112 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 270A

Whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law to confirm the levy of penalty at Rs.84,47,30,522/- u/s 270A of the Income tax Act, 1961 made by the Assessing Officer while passing the order on 27.09.2021? 3. Whether ... return of income filed u/s 139(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for AY: 2017-18 on 15.03.2018 which called for levy of penalty of Rs. 84,47,30,522/- u/s 270A of the Income tax Act, 1961? 4. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified on the fact

V. M. Maniyar Exports, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1368/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1368/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) V.M.Maniyar Exports Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.103-104, Surat Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat Vs. Special Economic Zone, Gidc, Sachin,Surat-394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifv 6884 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 10ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the case falls within the mischief of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO levied minimum penalty of Rs.2,60,720/-, being @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before ... submitted that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate. The addition or disallowance in the assessment proceedings would not automatically lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The addition made by the AO was on the basis of the return filed by the assessee. Hence, there

Popular Mega Motors (India) Private Limited, Kochi vs. DCIT, Corporate Cir 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 273/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

17th March, 2025, and relates to assessment year 2013-2014. 2. At the outset, we find that the solitary issue involved is regarding levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee drawn the attention of the bench towards page

Vanajakshy Binoyi, Alappuzha vs. DCIT Circle Intl.Txn, Trivandrum

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

ITA 270/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Biju P.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

No.ITBA/ALP/S/250/ 2024- 25/1072815535(1) and relates to the assessment year 2018- 2019. 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is the levy of penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs.40,000. It is the case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee failed to appear

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 173/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 271B

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kochi, dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, against the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 172/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 271B

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kochi, dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, against the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan

Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

ITA 171/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 271B

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kochi, dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, against the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan

The Saswad Mali Sugar Factory, Solapur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Solapur

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

ITA 312/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.312/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Saswad Mali Sugar Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Solapur. Factory, Malingar Tal. Malshiras, Dist. Solapur- 413108. Pan : Aaact9821D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B. D. Bhide Revenue By : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 06.01.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of The Penalty Order U/S 270A Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18 Framed On 15.09.2021 By The Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal But All Are Directed Against The Findings Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac

For Appellant: Shri B. D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri A. D. Kulkarni
Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(2)

assessee has raised various grounds of appeal but all are directed against the findings of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC 2 confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act at Rs.15,37,754/- levied by the Assessing Officer for under-reporting of income of Rs.1

Mr Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 2483/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Singha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and circumstance prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act it be held that the notice for levy of penalty was defective since no specific charge of violation, was made out in the notice and thus the consequent penalty so levied be kindly deleted

M/S Vodafone Global Services P Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 660/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 156Section 270Section 92C(2)Section 92D

purposes. 25. Ground No.1 is stated to be general in nature and needs no adjudication. Ground No. 9 raised by the assessee regarding levy of penalty is premature and consequential in nature. 26. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this

Kalpana Dilip Mehta As Legal Heir of Dilip D Mehta, Mumbai vs. JCIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. C.A. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty order. 5. Thereafter, the then Ld. CIT(A)-51, Mumbai vide order dated 07.01.2025 affirmed the aforesaid addition. 6. The AO, ultimately levied the penalty of Rs.6,54,98,527/- @ 100% of the tax amount evaded on the undisclosed income/addition of Rs.19,48,46,625/- by mainly holding ... Rs.19,64,95,581/- I hereby levy a minimum penalty @ 100% of Rs.6,54,98,600/- ”. 7. The Assessee being aggrieved with the levy of penalty vide order dated 07.08.2015 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO, challenged the same by filing first appeal before

Rupesh Mahendra Kankariya, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Ahmednahgar, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 465/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.465/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rupesh Mahendra Kankariya, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Ahmednagar. B Namrata Marbles, Tilak Road, Ahmednagar- 414001. Pan : Arspk8493L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Kimaya Kudva Revenue By Shri Milind Debaje : Date Of Hearing 22.04.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In; I. Concluding That The Appellant'S Request For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Without Any Reasonable Cause, Rejecting The Application & Dismissing The Appeal In Limine. Ii. Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Adjudicating The Ground Challenging Levy Of Penalty Of Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Miss Kimaya Kudva
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reasonable cause, rejecting the application and dismissing the appeal in limine. ii. Dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the ground challenging levy of penalty of appeal on merits. 2 2. The appellant pleads that the notices seeking information and fixing hearing were served via email through ITBA portal