“deletion of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 271348 judgments

The decision most relied on for deletion of penalty is Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT (115 TTJ 419), cited in 292 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on deletion of penalty

Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT

115 TTJ 419 · 2008 · ITAT

292

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 142(1) is not leviable when the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause for such non-compliance. The decision defines what constitutes 'reasonable cause' in this context.

Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai

84 Taxmann.com 51 · 2017 · ITAT

263

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be deleted merely due to technical defects in the penalty notice, such as not ticking the specific default, if the assessee understood the charges.

K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT

265 ITR 562 · 2004 · Supreme Court

241

citing judgments

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

221 ITR 110 · 1996 · High Court

146

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries

360 ITR 580 · 2014 · High Court

117

citing judgments

No penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is leviable when an addition to income is made purely on an estimation basis, absent concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.

303 ITR 53 · 2008 · High Court

116

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is not leviable when an addition to income is made purely on an estimated basis, without any concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT

222 ITR 691 · 1996 · High Court

114

citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied if a penalty under Section 271A has already been imposed for non-maintenance of books of account.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd.

345 ITR 270 · 2012 · High Court

114

citing judgments

Transactions involving the receipt or repayment of loans or deposits solely through journal entries, without actual cash movement, contravene Sections 269SS and 269T. However, penalties under Sections 271D or 271E for such contraventions are not imposable if the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause under Section 273B, particularly when no cash has passed between parties.

Judgments citing deletion of penalty

DCIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sphynx Agro Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6632/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27i

alia that: “(i). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in making deletion of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.56,54,880/-. (ii). The appellant prays that the order ... furnishing inaccurate particular of income. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has deleted the penalty on merits by allowing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have

ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alaska India Marketing, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7444/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rohit UdaniFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

appeal: - 1. "Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,82,00,000/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has furnished ... Bank accounts?". 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on the ground that the addition on the basis of which

ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alaska India Marketing, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7443/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rohit UdaniFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2595/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

2595/Mum./2014 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.57,37,070/- imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.1,56,78,265/- made with regard ... aside and that of the A.O. be restored." 2. The only grievance of the Revenue in the present appeal is against deletion of penalty of Rs. 57,37,070 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 2581/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the revenue against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by the additional CIT u/s 271D & 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). Since we note that the facts and the law involved in the captioned ... after carefully examining the records/appeals/CO filed by the parties. 3. ITA. No. 2580/Mum/2017 for AY.2010-11 is revenue appeal against the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act (for accepting the loan through journal entries violating provision of Section 269SS of the Act) and ITA. No.2581/Mum/2017

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 2580/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1483/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1482/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

DCIT Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai vs. Saunak Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1243/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: None

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). In both the years, Revenue is aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs.2,16,27,860/- for Assessment Year 2007-08 and Rs.9,42,29,730/- for Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Facts in brief ... been incorporated in the impugned appeal order from pages 6 to 18. Accordingly, he held that once the quantum itself has been deleted, then penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable and does not survive. 4. In view of the aforesaid fact that when

DCIT Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai vs. Saunak Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1242/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: None

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

DCIT Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai vs. Milan Kavin Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1241/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: None

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

relation to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Revenue is aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs.9,42,29,730/-. 2. Facts in brief as culled out from the appellate order is as under : 2.1 The appellant Mr. Milan ... been incorporated in the impugned appeal order from pages 6 to 18. Accordingly, he held that once the quantum itself has been deleted, then penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable and does not survive. 4. In view of the aforesaid fact that the Tribunal

Radhika Dipen Mehta, Mumbai vs. The ITO 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1882/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora/ Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The revenue's appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. On appeal ... which was confirmed by the CIT(A) and this Tribunal was pleased to delete the same. The Tribunal was pleased to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act on the ground that the issue relating

Radhika Dipen Mehta, Mumbai vs. The ITO 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1881/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora/ Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

ACIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3978/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-12(2)(1), D-31, Star Apartment, S.V. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Borivali (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Tax-12(2)(1), 31, Star Apartment, S.V. Road, Borivali Room No. 128E, 1St Floor, Vs. West, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

assessee is against additions of unexplained cash credit upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal by the Revenue is against deletion of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer for accepting loan otherwise then an account payee cheque. Being connected issues, both these appeals are heard together and dispose

Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2570/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Masthi Gowda P, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

assessment passed u/s. 143(3) by order dated 11/03/2021 stating that the relevance of interest and depreciation in the assessment and also the deletion of penalty by the AO are erroneous to the interest of the revenue. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT the assessee is in appeal ... Babu Reddy (supra). The same decision is quoted by the PCIT in a different manner to hold that the AO’s order deleting the penalty is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. When two views are possible in the interpretation of a judicial pronouncement, the impugned assessment

Manjunatha, K R Pet vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

assessment passed u/s. 143(3) by order dated 29/03/2021 stating that the relevance of interest and depreciation in the assessment and also the deletion of penalty by the AO are erroneous to the interest of the revenue. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT the assessee is in appeal ... Babu Reddy (supra). The same decision is quoted by the PCIT in a different manner to hold that the AO’s order deleting the penalty is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. When two views are possible in the interpretation of a judicial pronouncement, the impugned assessment

ITO - 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Laquilla Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3605/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 269TSection 271ESection 273

Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai dated 20/03/2019 25/07/2019 for assessment year 2011-12 and 22/09/2016 for assessment year 2012-13 against the deletion of penalty under section 271E of the Act. ITA No.3605/Mum/2019 – A.Y. 2011-12 2. First of all we will take up the appeal relating ... main grievance of the Revenue is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the penalty under section 271E of the Act. 2 ITAs 3605/Mum/2019 & 259/Mum/2017 3. Brief facts of the case is that original return of income was filed by the assessee showing total income of Rs.8

DCIT 4 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Skf India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7278/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R. P. PopatFor Respondent: Mrs. Neha Thakur (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A)is right in directing to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1(c) of the I. T. Act. 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to follow inclusive method of accounting ... levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the penalty, therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE NO.1 4. Under this issue the revenue has challenged the deletion of penalty with regard

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3112/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Sri Niraj Seth, ARFor Respondent: Sri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273B

filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 against the deletion of penalty under section 271D of the income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act’) in case of assessee. Both the appeals involved identical facts ... Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of ₹1,17,23,991/- under section 271D holding that there was reasonable cause under section 273B for entering on transaction to transaction basis the given case