← All Phrases

“penalty proceedings initiated”

PenaltySection 271Section 271556 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty proceedings initiated is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty proceedings initiated

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. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd.
171 Taxmann 156 · 2008 · High Court
384
citing judgments

The assessment order must clearly specify the reason for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and explicitly state whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Failure to identify the specific limb under which penalty is initiated renders the penalty unsustainable.

MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
38 Taxmann.com 448 · 2013 · Supreme Court
186
citing judgments

A voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically exempt an assessee from penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer must satisfy himself about initiating penalty proceedings during the assessment, but is not required to record this satisfaction in a specific written manner.

P.V. Doshi v. CIT
113 ITR 22 · 1978 · High Court
179
citing judgments

The lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be waived and can be challenged at a later stage, even if not raised initially. An invalid reassessment due to such jurisdictional defects cannot sustain subsequent penalty proceedings.

Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT
99 Taxmann.com 152 · 2018 · Supreme Court
121
citing judgments

The Supreme Court, by dismissing the Special Leave Petition, affirmed that a penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to specify the exact limb (furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income) under which the penalty is initiated. This failure to frame a specific charge vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills
379 ITR 521 · 2015 · Supreme Court
110
citing judgments

The assessing officer must record explicit satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under sections like 271D, 271E, 269SS, 269T, or 269ST; a mere recommendation or information to another authority is insufficient to validate the penalty.

CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.
246 ITR 568 · 2000 · High Court
103
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must record clear satisfaction in the assessment order that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Without such recorded satisfaction, the penalty proceedings lack jurisdiction and are unsustainable in law.

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation
305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

Judgments citing penalty proceedings initiated

DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Central Coalfield Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 218/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. We shall be obliged ... addition made by the CIT(A), the AO imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant

DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Central Coalfields Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 217/RAN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. We shall be obliged ... DCIT & 1 Anr. imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant case are strikingly different from

M/S. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 213/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. We shall be obliged ... DCIT & 1 Anr. imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant case are strikingly different from

M/S. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 212/RAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. We shall be obliged ... addition made by the CIT(A), the AO imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant

M/S. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. We shall be obliged ... addition made by the CIT(A), the AO imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant

M/S. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 210/RAN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. We shall be obliged ... addition made by the CIT(A), the AO imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant

M/S. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 209/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. We shall be obliged ... addition made by the CIT(A), the AO imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant

M/S. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/RAN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. 5 M/s CCL Vs DCIT ... addition made by the CIT(A), the AO imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant

M/S. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 207/RAN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. We shall be obliged ... addition made by the CIT(A), the AO imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant

DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Central Coalfield Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 206/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. We shall be obliged ... addition made by the CIT(A), the AO imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant

DCIT, Circle-1Ranchi, Ranchi vs. Central Coalfield Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 163/RAN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. We shall be obliged ... addition made by the CIT(A), the AO imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant

Yash Kumar Goyal, Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), Gwalior

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 519/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

based on the original reasons recorded under Section 147/148 unless they are supported by incriminating material found during the search. 4. That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section ... course of hearing before this hon'ble bench. 4. In the ITA No. 518/Agr/2025, further raised following additional grounds of appeal: That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are void ab initio, in as much as the impugned penalty notices dated

Yash Kumar Goyal, Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), Gwalior

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 518/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

based on the original reasons recorded under Section 147/148 unless they are supported by incriminating material found during the search. 4. That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section ... course of hearing before this hon'ble bench. 4. In the ITA No. 518/Agr/2025, further raised following additional grounds of appeal: That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are void ab initio, in as much as the impugned penalty notices dated

Jaggo, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 555/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Jaggo Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Sh. Indar H. No. 6, Azampur Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura Mathura, Mathura Pan : Ayopj8958J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 17.11.2025 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Assessee Is In This Appeal, Raising Following Grounds : “1. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Information/Explanation Along With The Documents During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Above Notice Was Issued Through Registered E-Mail Id & Fixed For Compliance On 26.02.2021, After Laps Of Considerable Time, The Assessing Officer Issued The Another Notice U/S 274 To The Assessee R.W.S 271(1)B) Of The Act Why Penalty U/S 271 Of The Act Should Not Be Initiated & Levied. In Compliance, The Assessee Not Submitted Any Reply. Accordingly, Assessing Officer Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

redo the assessment for the reason that the assessee is illiterate and none of the notices issued and served on the assessee. The penalty proceedings initiated in the case of the assessee are exactly similar, it is relating to the same proceedings, However ld. CIT(Appeals) has taken a different

M/S. R R Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2741/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

applying the law laid down in the above decisions, we can safely hold that such notices are bad in law. Consequently, the penalty proceedings initiated are to be held to be wholly invalid. 15. Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court even noted the decision in the case of Sundaram Finance

Mustafa Alihusain Sunelwala, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 274Section 54F

completely attributable to the incorrect professional advice rendered to the assessee by his Chartered Accountant. It was also contended that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO are fundamentally flawed as there is no clear specification under which sub-section of section 270A the alleged misreporting has been covered

Srimad Virat Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Muttam, Kadapa vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: | 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/08/2023 & 21/10/2025 Respectively For The A.Y.2016-17.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate
Section 253(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam, Cuddapah vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Tirupathi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

well as the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (supra), we hold that the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the penalty levied by the Ld. AO and confirmed

DCIT, Delhi vs. Aster Tradelinks Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6254/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 153(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

That in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the impugned penalty as the penalty proceedings initiated are bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and without granting adequate opportunity of hearing and without observing

Amit Prabhunath Jaiswal, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -28(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed with cost for statistical

ITA 5280/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 68

When the approval u/s 151 itself is invalid, all further assessment proceedings and void ab initio. The penalty proceeding initiated u/s. 271 AAC (1) and 272(1)(d) on the strength of invalid approval is liable to be quashed, the penalty proceedings initiated is not valid, which may kindly