“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

Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kalpetta, Wayanad vs. The Kaniyambetta Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Kaniyambetta, Wayanad, Kerala

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

ITA 230/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271ESection 273B

account of the members and therefore there is no doubt about the genuiness and identity of the persons and therefore prayed to delete the penalty. The Ld.CIT(A) also considered the issue in detail and considered the fact that the assessee has dealt with the members only and also ... available on record. 6. The facts involved in this appeal is admitted by both sides and the only dispute is with regard to deletion of penalty at 10% of the amount by the Ld.CIT(A). We consider the facts that the assessee is a co-operative society and also they

Dakshinamoorthy Kumaresan, Thiruvarur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvarur

ITA 2452/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

90/2020, dated 22.11.2024 and Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob vs. ITO, (2021) 124 taxmann.com 363 (Madras) and prayed for deletion of penalty. 5. On the other hand, Id. Departmental Representative submitted that when Assessing Officer had recorded in assessment order particulars of concealed income/undisclosed income ... case of Samson Perinchery (supra) had held as under:- 3. The impugned order of the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondent- Assessee. This by holding that the initiation of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act by Assessing Officer was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

Mr. Abhijit K. Avarrsekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -6(12)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee dismissed

ITA 3746/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Apurv Gandhi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R

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

upon by the assessee (supra), is totally on different set of facts and incidentally the decision supports the levy of penalty rather than deletion of penalty inasmuch as in that I.T.A. No. 3746/Mum/2024 5 case, no material was recovered during the course of search and the assessee added Rs.21.65 Lakhs ... Explanation (5) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, could not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, deletion of penalty was justified. Facts are clearly distinguishable and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court supports the action of the revenue authorities

Income Tax Officer, Kudal vs. Sindhudurg District Primary Teachers Co-Operative Credit Society, Oros, Sindhudurg Nagari, Kudal

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

ITA 2113/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2113/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind desai

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Rs.65,16,796/- u/s.270A for under-reporting of Income. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority who vide impugned order deleted the penalty by holding as under : “5. Thus as evident when the basis on which the penalty had been levied by the AO has lost ... Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the sides and carefully perused the material on record. The Revenue filed the present appeal against the deletion of penalty by the ld.CIT(A). We find The Tribunal vide ITA No.582/PUN/2024 order dated 02.07.2024 (copy placed on record) dismissed the appeal filed

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito, Vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable 618, Mtnl Cumballa Hill Telephone Trust, Exchange Building, Peddar Road, 405A, 407, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, Maharashtra – 400 026 10, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaatm0140K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

appeal before Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 21.05.2024 has set aside the order of AO and deleted the penalty vide para 6 (6.1 to 6.1.2) and the same are reproduced below:- “6. Decision After considering facts of the case and submissions of the appellant ... evident that the same are ambiguous. However the controversy /dispute before us is whether there is any illegalities with respect to deletion of penalty by Ld. CIT (A) on the ground that quantum appeal has already been decided in favour of the assessee and for that reason the penalty imposed

DCIT14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Offshore Marinetech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5307/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(c)

13/08/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi in relation to penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for the A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of penalty of Rs.4,27,573/- on account of estimated GP @12.50% on the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,10,69,853/-. 2 Offshore Marinetech ... preferred any appeal against such estimation of GP rate, the ld. AO has levied the penalty. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty after observing as under:- “During the course of assessment, the AO treated purchases from some parties as bogus purchases and passed his assessment order making

The Jalgaon District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Jalgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1 Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2082/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

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

Rs.13,69,955/-. 4.4 The ld.CIT(A) in the order dated 09.08.2024 in paragraph 4.4 has directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of provision for standard assets of Rs.33,90,000/-. Thus, the penalty levied under section ... vide order dated 02.03.2022 has been completely deleted by the ld.CIT(A). Revenue has not filed any appeal against the said deletion of penalty on account provision for standard assets. 5 4.5 However, erroneously ld.CIT(A) in paragraph 4.6 and 4.7 held that penalty on account of nominal membership

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Swami Vivekanand Medical Mission, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3531/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Swami Vivekanand Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Medical Mission Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Peddar C/O Sanjivani Hospital, Vs. Road, Cumbala Hill, Datta Mandir Road, Mumbai - 400026 Virar(W) Mumbai – 401303 Pan: Aabts9185K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anil Sathe,Ca Revenue By : Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per : Prabhash Shankar: The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, With Regard To The Assessment/Penalty Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) & 270A Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. We Take Up The Quantum Appeal First Relating To Assessment Order In Ita No.3531/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe,CAFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

upholding his order and consequently dismissing the grounds in this regard. ITA No.3530/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 7. The Revenue has agitated deletion of penalty imposed by the AO u/s 270A of the Act w.r.t. the quantum appeal.The ld.CIT(A) has deleted penalty as quantum appeal was already allowed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Swami Vivekanand Medical Mission, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3530/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe,CAFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Income Tax Officer, Burdwan vs. Paharhati O Uttar Memari Cooperative Agricultural Marketing Society Limited, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1455/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, ACITFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,00,40,222/- not appreciating the fact that the co-operative assessee during the corresponding Financial Year has repaid the deposit ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,00,40,222/- not appreciating the fact that the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,00,40,222/- was imposed upon

Mr. Tulshiram Hanumant Bhoi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 42(3)(1), Mumai

ITA 4504/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) with 3 Tulshiram Hanumant Bhoi sufficient reason and prayer to condone the delay and delete the penalty. But, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appellant’s appeal on the ground of delay without adjudicating on merits ... Hence, the Ld. AR of appellant prayed for relief on the count of delay and deletion of penalty. 6. Ld. DR has pointed out that the appellant rectified the mistake only after Department intimated him and hence penalty should be levied. 7. Heard both sides. After hearing both sides

Mother Theressa Educational Society, Amalapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270ASection 274Section 80G

before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and deleted the penalty levied u/s 274 r.w. 270A of the Act for under reporting of income due to mis-reporting. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate ... other Ground with the permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 6. The only contention of the revenue is with respect to deletion of penalty on the mis-reporting of income by the assessee which is not allowed under section 11(6) of the Act. The Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter

ACIT, Exemption Circle, Vijayawada vs. Mother Theressa Educational Society, Chaitanyanagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/VIZ/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270ASection 274Section 80G

Ram Kishore Meena, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd, Morak, Kota

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 350/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal ( C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

given in 20 Assessment years from the impugned assessment year.” 2. Apropos solitary ground of appeal of the Revenue as to deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)C of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) who observed as under :- “5.0 Decision and Reason: The submissions filed by the appellant ... identical set of facts the Ld. CIT(A), Kota vide his order dated 12.03.2019 in Appeal No 315/17-18 for A.Y. 2012-13, has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.7 In view of the above and respectfully following the ratio laid down

Kanhiaya Lal Sain, Jaipur vs. JCIT Range-7 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 1022/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

find them to be fit cases for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied in respect of the captioned appellants for all the assessment years under KANHIYA LAL SAIN VS JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR consideration. By this consolidated ... been held that Levy of Penalty u/s.271D—Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269ss—Deletion of Penalty—AO noticed that assessee, borrowed loan from main promoter of AOP, in cash for expeditious acquisition of land, in violation of section 269SS of the I.T. Act— Therefore, penalty

Sharadchandra Dattatray Mulik, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kolhapur

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

ITA 619/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sharadchandra Dattatray Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Mulik, Kolhapur. Dattaashila Agencies, Gargoti Road, At Post Uttur, Tal. Ajra, Kolhapur- 416220. Pan : Aghpm1855G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Levying The Penalty U/S 271B A Sum Of Rs.1,50,000 Without Appreciating The Reasonable Circumstances Under Which Appellant Was Not Able To Get His Account Audited, As The Appointed Ca Has Discontinued The Audit Without An Intimation & Not Issued The Tax Audit Report, Under Such Circumstances Your Appellant Prays For Deletion Of Penalty.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 271BSection 44A

appointed CA has discontinued the audit without an intimation and not issued the tax audit report, under such circumstances your appellant prays for deletion of penalty. 2 Your appellant craves for to add, alter, amend, modify, delete all above or any grounds of appeal before or during the course ... from the department. Under the above circumstances, the audit work and return filing got delayed, therefore, the assessee requested before the Bench to delete the penalty imposed u/s 271B of the IT Act. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities

ACIT, Amravati Circle, Amravati vs. Chandrapur Dist Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

crore. The assessee being aggrieved with the penalty order, filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by passing a detailed and elaborate order. The observations of the learned ... deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are reproduced below:– “6.0 I have considered the submission made by the counsel of appellant and perused the evidence on record. The brief facts in case of appellant are that it is carrying on banking business as co-operative

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mawana Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 3498/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 43B

Assessment Year 2001-02. Both the appeals are interconnected having common facts and Revenue 3. had filed appeal against the deletion of penalty by the ld. CIT (A). Therefore, both the appeals are heard together and disposed off by this common order. 4. First we deal with various grounds raised ... considered the detailed submission of the assessee and decided the issue in favour of the assessee by deleting the penalty levied. 32. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us by raising following ground of appeal :- “On the facts and the circumstances of the case

Mawana Sugars Limited., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 4519/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 43B

ACIT-2(3)(1)Q, Mumbai vs. N R Agarwal Industries, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3460/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 801ASection 80I

Ahmedabad in relation to the penalty proceedings u/ 271(1)(c) of the Act. In all the years, revenue is aggrieved by deletion of penalty by the CIT (A) who has deleted the penalty on the ground that the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings has deleted the additions on which