← All Phrases

“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, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Smt. Asha Bhagwanrao Kadam, Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1894/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

filed by the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the common order dated 18.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment years ... filed by the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the common order dated 18.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune- 12 deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271E of the Act relating to assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-2020 respectively but not deciding

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax vs. Rajeev Kumar Mittal, Hisar

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5141/DEL/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Ita No:- 5141/Del/2025 (Assessment Year- 2018) Income Tax Officer, Rajeev Kumar Mittal, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-14, H. No. 95, Hbc, Ward No. 3, Hisar, Haryana-125001. Vs Sirsa Road, Hisar, Haryana- 125001. Pan- Aldpm6294Q Revenue Assessee

Section 147Section 254(2)Section 271A

acceptable and further appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT is recommended vide ITA No. 4792/Del/2025. (ii) The tax effect involved in the deletion of penalty u/s 271AAC1 in this case is Rs. 52,37,394/- which is below the monetary limit for filing further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT

Dinesh Kishor Gogiya, Ulhasnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4250/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 144BSection 147Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

which is under section 271A for non maintenance of books of accounts. I have preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT for deletion of penalty under section 271A as I am not liable to maintain the books of accounts, hence, there is no question of getting the Books

Income Tax Officer, Sanjay Place vs. Amit Shukla, Khandari

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 177/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Income-Tax Officr, Vs. Amit Shukla, 2/90, Kotla House, Ward 1(1)(1), Agra. Khandari, Agra. Pan :Amips4715Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department By Shri R.P. Maurya, Cit (A)-1/Dr Date Of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2025 Order

Section 271D

levying penalties by the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) and learned CIT(Appeals) deleted the quantum and accordingly deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the above order passed by learned ... quantum appeal preferred by the assessee before the Hon’ble High Court. That being the case, the present appeal, challenging the deletion of penalty u/s. 271D of the Act, is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to follow the decision of the Hon’ble High

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Thangamani Perumalgounder, Namakkal

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2155/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2155/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 269SSection 271D

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 03.03.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The Revenue raised various grounds contending the deletion of penalty levied u/s. 271DA of the Act by the CIT(A). 2. There is a delay of 62 days in filing the appeal ... levied a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the penalty stating that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had deleted the addition made in the quantum appeal and the penalty u/s. 271DA

Proton Positive Health Care India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 812/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

deem it apposite to cull out the observations of Hon’ble High Court, as under: “The issue involved in the appeal revolves around deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income

DCIT 19.1 Mumbai, Lalbag Mumbai vs. Ambika Diamonds, Bkc Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5873/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 14.07.2025 for Assessment Years (AY) 2012-13. The grounds raised by the revenue pertain to the deletion of penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the CIT(A). 2. The assessee is a partnership firm and filed the return ... assessee contended that no penalty can be levied when the addition is made on estimated basis. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty by placing reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Elcon Pipe & Fittings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 496/Mum/2018 dated

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1906/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

evaded. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) granted the relief amount to Rs.2,28,178/- by deletion of penalty related to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.2,28,178/-. The rest of the penalty is sustained ... under section 153A, and (v) income declared in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), the suo-moto disallowance of interest in the return filed under section 153A

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1905/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

evaded. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) granted the relief amount to Rs.2,28,178/- by deletion of penalty related to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.2,28,178/-. The rest of the penalty is sustained ... under section 153A, and (v) income declared in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), the suo-moto disallowance of interest in the return filed under section 153A

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1904/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

evaded. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) granted the relief amount to Rs.2,28,178/- by deletion of penalty related to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.2,28,178/-. The rest of the penalty is sustained ... under section 153A, and (v) income declared in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), the suo-moto disallowance of interest in the return filed under section 153A

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1903/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

evaded. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) granted the relief amount to Rs.2,28,178/- by deletion of penalty related to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.2,28,178/-. The rest of the penalty is sustained ... under section 153A, and (v) income declared in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), the suo-moto disallowance of interest in the return filed under section 153A

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1902/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

evaded. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) granted the relief amount to Rs.2,28,178/- by deletion of penalty related to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.2,28,178/-. The rest of the penalty is sustained ... under section 153A, and (v) income declared in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), the suo-moto disallowance of interest in the return filed under section 153A

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1901/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

evaded. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) granted the relief amount to Rs.2,28,178/- by deletion of penalty related to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.2,28,178/-. The rest of the penalty is sustained ... under section 153A, and (v) income declared in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), the suo-moto disallowance of interest in the return filed under section 153A

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1900/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

evaded. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) granted the relief amount to Rs.2,28,178/- by deletion of penalty related to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.2,28,178/-. The rest of the penalty is sustained ... under section 153A, and (v) income declared in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), the suo-moto disallowance of interest in the return filed under section 153A

Income Tax Officer 19.1.1, Piramal Chamber Lal Baug vs. A J Diam, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3845/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

following grounds of appeal. “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty Rs. 2,68,781/-levied by the AO on the restricted addition @ 3% of Rs.22,02,190/-by ignoring the fact that the disallowance ... authorities to be proper? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied, by ignoring the fact that there was a conscious concealment of particulars of income and a deliberate failure to furnish accurate particulars

Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.545/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Excelra Knowledge Vs. Dy.Cit Solutions Private Limited Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcg5715Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19. Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)

audited financials and acted under a bona fide legal understanding, no penalty can be imposed. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed for deletion of penalty. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) supported the orders of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). He argued that the assessee ... considered view, the penalty levied by the Ld. AO is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, the Ld. AO is directed to delete the penalty of Rs.54,45,894/-. Page 7 of 8 ITA No 545 of 2025 Excelra Knowledge Solutions P Ltd 9. Since we have allowed the appeal

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Delhi vs. Anova Infracon Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4313/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

these captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are having common issue of deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act therefore, these two appeals filed by the Revenue are decided by a common order. 3. First we take the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 4312/Del/2025 ... order of penalty, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 05.05.2025, allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty by observing that since the addition is deleted, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not survived. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Anova Infracon Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4312/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

these captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are having common issue of deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act therefore, these two appeals filed by the Revenue are decided by a common order. 3. First we take the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 4312/Del/2025 ... order of penalty, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 05.05.2025, allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty by observing that since the addition is deleted, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not survived. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT

Sampath Reddy Vem, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1230/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1229 & 1230/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sampath Reddy Vem Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Adfpv3598L Warangal (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Theses Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sampath Reddy Vem (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 Respectively For The A.Y 2014-15. As Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee Therefore, For The Purpose Of Convenience & Brevity, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

assessment and penalty proceedings was duly supported by the factual matrix, and the absence of mens rea or deliberate concealment should have warranted deletion of penalty. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any or more grounds of appeal stated herein above either before

Sampath Reddy Vem, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward - 1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1229/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1229 & 1230/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sampath Reddy Vem Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Adfpv3598L Warangal (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Theses Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sampath Reddy Vem (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 Respectively For The A.Y 2014-15. As Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee Therefore, For The Purpose Of Convenience & Brevity, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

assessment and penalty proceedings was duly supported by the factual matrix, and the absence of mens rea or deliberate concealment should have warranted deletion of penalty. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any or more grounds of appeal stated herein above either before