“cancellation of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 27149 judgments

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

Leading authorities on cancellation 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.

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.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

A penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied if an assessee files a revised return to buy peace and avoid litigation, and the revenue accepts this without objection.

ITO v. Amarnath Shivraj (HUF)

1 SOT 346 · 2004 · ITAT

citing judgments

Penalties levied under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS may be cancelled. This applies particularly when transactions, such as salary or rent adjustments made through journal entries, do not involve actual cash receipts or payments.

CIT v. Dimpal Yadav

379 ITR 177 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271D is justified if the assessee fails to show reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS, and Section 273B can be applied to cancel the penalty if reasonable cause is established.

Judgments citing cancellation of penalty

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2898/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32A

cannot stand by itself and the same is liable to be cancelled as in the instant case ordered by the Tribunal and later cancellation of penalty by the authorities (Para 14)." In the case of Pr. CIT v. Smt. Jayashree Jayakar Mohanka [2023] 146 taxmann.com 321 (Calcutta ... penalty proceedings, if no opportunity was given to the assessee to cross-examine witnesses. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)( c ) of the Act on the basis of findings arrived at on the basis of material collected and the statement

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2767/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH "D" MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3488/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

M/S Shivalik Enterprises, Shimla vs. ITO, W-1, Shimla

ITA 1347/CHANDI/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg& Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DR

Section 271Section 801CSection 80I

Revenue against the order dated 17/07/2017 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'], Shimla, H.P. relating to the cancellation of penalty levied by Assessing officer u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts relating

Mahavir Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), New Delhi

ITA 8602/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Singhla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

should be finalized by an officer having jurisdiction. Therefore, while accepting the decision of the tribunal on the question of cancellation of penalty, the High Court held that the proceedings had not been finalized and could be finalized by the Income Tax Officer. In the present case, proceedings were initiated

Vinod Gugnani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3764/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and sustained the other disallowances made by Assessing Officer.

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We are, therefore, of the considered view that this penalty should be cancelled and we order cancellation of penalty.” 11. From the above decision, it is clear that mere claim does not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing

ITO, Ward 77(1), New Delhi vs. Santur Builders P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1973/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

facts situation, we see no reason to depart therefrom. Consequently, we find merit in the plea raised on behalf of the assessee for cancellation of penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Act.” 5 | P a g e AY: 2016-17 4. In consonance with view taken

Ginni Gold Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Anup Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

supra) the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:- “4. The primary challenge in this appeal is to the cancellation of penalty on addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee had made a claim of deduction ... mala fide. It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal after examining the entire material on record that the CIT (A) had rightly cancelled the penalty against the assessee. It was further recorded that the assessee made a bona 5 I.T.A. No. 564/Del/2022 fide claim of deduction of the expenditure

Begud Beverges Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1798/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Saho, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

that excess claim of depreciation was not an advertent error. 9. We thus see palpable merit in the plea of the assessee for cancellation of penalty. We thus reverse the action of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed on this score

ITO, Ward-77(3), New Delhi vs. Silverglades Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 677/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 194CSection 2Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 3(3)(ii)

facts situation, we see no reason to depart therefrom. Consequently, we find merit in the plea raised on behalf of the assessee for cancellation of penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Act.” 5. In consonance with view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench, we hold that imposition of demand

Gopal Global Developers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, TDS Ward 74(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2664/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

Section 194CSection 2Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 3(3)(ii)

facts situation, we see no reason to depart therefrom. Consequently, we find merit in the plea raised on behalf of the assessee for cancellation of penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Act.” 5. In consonance with view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench, we hold that imposition of demand

ITO Ward-77(1), New Delhi vs. Santur Builders Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 217/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sarthak Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 194CSection 2Section 201Section 271CSection 3(3)(ii)

facts situation, we see no reason to depart therefrom. Consequently, we find merit in the plea raised on behalf of the assessee for cancellation of penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Act.” 4. In consonance with view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench, we hold that imposition of demand

Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti Tonk, Madhav Kunj, Madhyamik Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Yag Ke Balaji, Tonk vs. DCIT(E), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271BSection 44A

Hence, the assessee was not liable to obtain any audit report within the meaning of section 44AB of the Act. Therefore, cancellation of penalty under section 271B was justified. We, therefore, are convinced with the arguments of the ld counsel for the assessee before the Ld CIT(A) and before

Bijay Kumar Rout, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-2 (3), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 187/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack19 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2012-13 Bijaya Kumar Rout, At/Po: Kumar Rout, At/Po: Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward Dall Mill Lane, Bajrakabati Dall Mill Lane, Bajrakabati 2(3), Cuttack 2(3), Cuttack Road, Dist: Cuttack Road, Dist: Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adupr 8768 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19 /0 04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/0 /04/2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Delhi, Dated 31.10.2022 31.10.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1046528073(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Section 271ASection 271B

High Court in the case of CIT vs S.K.Gupta & Co., 322 ITR 0086 (All), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court had confirmed the cancellation of penalty levied u/s.271A & 271B on the ground that reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited as no accounts were maintained. Ld AR also placed

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 943/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessee, which decisions are squarely applicable in the present case, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Id. CIT(Appeals) cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) and upholding the same, we dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue. In view ... Assessee, which decisions are squarely applicable in the present case, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Id. CIT(Appeals) cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) and upholding the same, we dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue." In view