← 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

Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 677/IND/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

Prem Chawla & other ITA Nos. 673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024- AY 2000-2001to 2006-07 Additional Grounds of appeal: 1. The levy of penalty is bad in law since, no specific satisfaction in the assessment order or penalty notice has been recorded and mentioned ... view of the judgment of the Hon. MP High Court, in the case of PCIT vs Kulvant Singh Bhatia 33 ITJ 777, the levy of penalty is bad in law since, no specific charge*satisfaction has been recorded and mentioned by the Ld. AO. 4. The levy of penalty

Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 676/IND/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

Prem Chawla & other ITA Nos. 673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024- AY 2000-2001to 2006-07 Additional Grounds of appeal: 1. The levy of penalty is bad in law since, no specific satisfaction in the assessment order or penalty notice has been recorded and mentioned ... view of the judgment of the Hon. MP High Court, in the case of PCIT vs Kulvant Singh Bhatia 33 ITJ 777, the levy of penalty is bad in law since, no specific charge*satisfaction has been recorded and mentioned by the Ld. AO. 4. The levy of penalty

Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 674/IND/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

Prem Chawla & other ITA Nos. 673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024- AY 2000-2001to 2006-07 Additional Grounds of appeal: 1. The levy of penalty is bad in law since, no specific satisfaction in the assessment order or penalty notice has been recorded and mentioned ... view of the judgment of the Hon. MP High Court, in the case of PCIT vs Kulvant Singh Bhatia 33 ITJ 777, the levy of penalty is bad in law since, no specific charge*satisfaction has been recorded and mentioned by the Ld. AO. 4. The levy of penalty

Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 673/IND/2024[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

Prem Chawla & other ITA Nos. 673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024- AY 2000-2001to 2006-07 Additional Grounds of appeal: 1. The levy of penalty is bad in law since, no specific satisfaction in the assessment order or penalty notice has been recorded and mentioned ... view of the judgment of the Hon. MP High Court, in the case of PCIT vs Kulvant Singh Bhatia 33 ITJ 777, the levy of penalty is bad in law since, no specific charge*satisfaction has been recorded and mentioned by the Ld. AO. 4. The levy of penalty

Lions Nab Community Eyecare Centre Miraj, Miraj, Sangli vs. Exemption Ward-Kolhapur, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1245/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1245/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Lions Nab Community Vs. Cit(Exemption), Eyecare Centre Miraj, Kolhapur Plot No. P-39, Midc, Miraj, Sangli-416410 Pan : Aabfl4373L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe
Section 271F

appeal and thus prayed for condonation of delay. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the same relates to levy of penalty u/s. 271F of the Act at Rs.5,000/- for not filing the income tax return. 2 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supporting

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. Tata Communications (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO of the assesseeare dismissed

ITA 39/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.39/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Jagruti Computech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 1(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 5751/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)

will attend the scrutiny case time to time as he has done in past. 11. That I received a Notice of Demand for levy of Penalty u/s 271(1) (b) and 271(1)(c) by mail on my mail id subashvkaranj@gmail.com on 30/09/2022, which I forwarded to Shri ... note that in paragraph 11 of the above affidavit, the Director of the Assessee-Company has stated that notice of demand for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) and Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was received by the Director of the Assessee-Company on 30/09/2022. Since

Kunjumol Shali, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 901/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sureshkumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139Section 148Section 148A

appeal of the assessee in quantum proceedings is still pending before the CIT(A). 3. In this case, we are concerned with the levy of penalty of Rs.5,000 which the AO has levied for non-filing of the original return in time. The learned Counsel for the assessee argued

V.V. Mohammed, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kannur

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

ITA 862/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sureshkumar C, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rs.1,49,00,000 framed the assessment. The AO simultaneously initiated penalty for concealment of income. Thereafter on 30th March, 2012, the AO levied the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. 3. Aggrieved with the order ... levying the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and contended that the penalty initiated by the AO in response to the notice u/s.274 of the Act, in which notice the correct limb has not been specified, is not tenable

Rameshwar Ramvilas Sarda, Pune vs. ITO 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 1462/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. V. DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 148Section 269SSection 271D

amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- in contravention of provisions of Sec. 269SS r.w.s. 271D. Accordingly, after affording four opportunities, the AO has levied the penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to the opportunities given, the appellant has contended that the AO was not justified ... levying the penalty based on the materials found during the course of search and the statement recorded from the third-party. Further, it was also contended that since the proceedings u/s 148 has been initiated against the same transaction, the levy of penalty was not justified. Accordingly, requested to delete

Niyati Sutaria Jemes, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailniyati Sutaria James, 302 Parimal Premises, 17Th Road, Khar West, Mumbai – 400052 ............... Appellant Pan : Ahipj7649B V/S Ito, Ward – 23(2)(1), Piramal Chambers, Parel ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

For Appellant: Shri Anil Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 273BSection 274

giving opportunity to the appellant for personal hearing as requested by the appellant.” 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available ... 01/01/2024, the AO 5 held that the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO levied a penalty of INR 10,000 under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed

Suresh Trilotkar, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 42(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4486/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 272A(1)(d)

order dt. 04/07/2024 of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2017-18. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the levy of penalty of Rs.20,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the appeal ... proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). Considering the cause for the default, we do not find any merit in the impugned levy of penalty. The same is directed to be deleted. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 3rd April

Prrabhat Cold Storage and Agro Processing Private Limited, Firozabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

ITA 198/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year:2017-18

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Appeals) [in short “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271D of the Act. 2. At the outset itself learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that both the revenue authorities below had proceeded

Shobha Ramakrishnana Nair, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Aluva

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

ITA 810/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250

notice dated 04-08-2022, from the Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair, Manjapra, Kerala Page 9 of 12 Income tax Officer, ward 2, Aluva, proposing levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)of the Act. It appears that all notices/communications addressed to her were sent to the earlier email id, which

Nishitha Reddy Vallamla, Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Range-9, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1407/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1407/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Nishitha Reddy Vs. Addl. C. I. T Vallamla, Hyderabad Range – 9 Pan:Avjpv1131F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Vinod, Advoacate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/04/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvoacateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 267Section 271D

that, the assessee has opted for VSV Scheme 2024 to settle the dispute of outstanding taxes arising from the impugned order on levy of penalty u/s 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961 by filing the declaration in Form-1. He has further Page

Sanskar Nagar, Jhansi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

Appeals stands allowed

ITA 346/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.351/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.352/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.353/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.354/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.349/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.346/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17; Smc Bench) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.347/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17; Smc Bench) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.348/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18; Smc Bench) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.350/Agr/2024

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 271D

153D. Considering these legal grounds, the assessment stand quashed. 8. The appeals listed at serial nos. 6 to 9 are penalty appeals assailing levy of penalty u/s 271D / 271E which emanates from respective assessment orders of Ld. AO for AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19. Since we have quashed assessments

The Chief Manager (Administration) State Bank of India, Jhansi vs. Additional CIT(TDS), Kanpur

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 289/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 10(5)Section 201(1)Section 271C

arises out of separate orders of first appellate authority. The grievance of the assessee is identical i.e., confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 271C. First, we take up appeal for AY 2015-16 which arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ... NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 10-06-2024 confirming levy of penalty u/s 271C. 2 2. From the case records, it emerges that impugned penalty has been levied for short deduction of tax at source on payment of Leave Fare Concession (LFC) journey to overseas destination as claimed by various

The Chief Manager (Administration) State Bank of India, Jhansi vs. Additional CIT (TDS), Kanpur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 288/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.288/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Chief Manager (Admin) Addl. Cit (Tds) बनाम/ State Bank Of India (Rbo) Kanpur 327/44, Gwalior Road, Civil Lines Vs. Jhansi – 284 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan No. Agrs-14799-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 10-06- 2024 confirming levy of penalty u/s 271C. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee and Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 2. From case record

The Chief Manager (Administration)State Bank of India, )N, Jhansi vs. Additional CIT (TDS), Kanpur

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 287/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 287/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 289/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chief Manager (Administration) Addl. Cit (Tds) State Bank Of India Kanpur बनाम/ Regional Business Office (Rbo), Vs. 372/44, Gwalior Road Civil Lines, Jhansi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir/Tan No.Agrs-14799-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Adv.-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Identical I.E., Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty U/S 271C. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-06-2024 Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 271C.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Adv.-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201(1)Section 271C

arises out of separate orders of first appellate authority. The grievance of the assessee is identical i.e., confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 271C. First, we take up appeal for AY 2015-16 which arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ... NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 10-06-2024 confirming levy of penalty u/s 271C. 2. From the case records, it emerges that impugned penalty has been levied for short deduction of tax at source on payment of Leave Fare Concession (LFC) journey to overseas destination as claimed by various employees

Vipin Verma, Etah vs. CIT(A) Aligarh, Aligarh

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 268/AGR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.268/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Vipin Verma बनाम/ Vs. Ito-3(2) Patiyali Gate, Etah 207001 Etah. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acipv-2736-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31-05-2024 In The Matter Of Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Rs.1.77 Lacs On 22-06-2018. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. Accordingly, The Appeal Was Heard With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Sr. Dr Who Pleaded For Dismissal Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

appeal was heard with the able assistance of Ld. Sr. DR who pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 2. The facts leading to levy of penalty are that Ld. AO made additions of Rs.9.12 Lacs in the assessment order. The assessee was engaged in online trading of MCX at commodity