← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)8,984 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c)

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. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Officer, Ward-51(1), New Delhi vs. Akshay Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2866/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muneesh Rajani, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. Sb Infosoft India Pvt Ltd, Panchkula

The appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 9189/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. Sb Infosoft India Pvt Ltd, Panchkula

The appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 9188/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Shri Anantanath Alpasankhyatar Vividh Uddeshagal Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niy, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 6/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 006/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Anantanath Alpasankhyatar Vivid Uddheshagal Souhardha Sahakari Sangh Niyamit [‘Saavusssn’] 1738, Anantnath Building, Jain Galli, Main Rd., Kannur Niyamit Kalloli, Kalloli, Belagavi. Pan : Aagts1962B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Gokak, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sachin Nichal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed Against Din & Order 1070608483(1) Dt. 25/11/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Penalty Dt. 23/03/2022 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi [‘Ld. Nfeac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2009-10 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Sachin Nichal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption-2, Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 248/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.247 & 248/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption-2, Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.247 & 248/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1488/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Giya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80P

that granting of advance to staff cannot be considered imperative to the business of the society. Simultaneously, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. In response to the notice issued by the AO on 19.02.2019, the assessee filed reply on 25.02.2019 stating ... found it acceptable. The AO accordingly after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, levied penalty of Rs. 40,432/- under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 being 100% of amount of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by the order

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1182/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

addition of Rs.19,81,560/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961 and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Subsequently, penalty order was passed vide order dated 24.02.2022 imposing penalty of Rs.4,93,570/- on account of concealment of income. On appeal

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1180/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

addition of Rs.19,81,560/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961 and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Subsequently, penalty order was passed vide order dated 24.02.2022 imposing penalty of Rs.4,93,570/- on account of concealment of income. On appeal

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

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

ITA 681/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 681/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society, Vs. Ward 2(1), Murali, Murali Post, Erode. Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District – 638 504. Pan: Aabak 3671M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2025

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(16)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ACIT Vs M/s. DAEE Coop T&C Society ITA No.: 3047/CHNY/2019 dt. 10.11.2020 6. The CIT(A) Wrongly initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) without proving concealment of income. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a primary agricultural co-operative credit society

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 529 & 530/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 530/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (SR DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

from the orders of the Ld. ACIT, CC-5(2), Mumbai (for 2 ITAs 529 & 530/Mum/2025 Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani brevity, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 02/03/2022, for A.Y. 2014-15 and dated 03/03/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. When the appeals were

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 529 & 530/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 529/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (SR DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

from the orders of the Ld. ACIT, CC-5(2), Mumbai (for 2 ITAs 529 & 530/Mum/2025 Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani brevity, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 02/03/2022, for A.Y. 2014-15 and dated 03/03/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. When the appeals were

Jyoti Nagpal, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 36(1), Civic Centre New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2289/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2009-10 Jyoti Nagpal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-337, 3Rd Floor, Ward-36(1), Derawal Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Adkpn3086C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060048530(1), dated 24.01.2024 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned counsel submits

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 691/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. 2. The brief facts ... income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 690/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. 2. The brief facts ... income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. 2. The brief facts ... income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Centeral Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 688/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act”] for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. 2. The brief facts ... income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. Dcitl Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 687/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. 2. The brief facts ... income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty

Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai PAN (HUF), Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.958/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai Pan (Huf) The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) बनाम 703-, Pyramid Tower Rajkot. Bansi Park Vs. Amin Marg Rajkot 360 001. Pan : Aaohs 9548 F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.SR.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, imposed by the assessing officer, therefore, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai Pan (HUF) ITA No.958 /RJT/2024 ... other hand, the ld.DR for the Revenue, relied on the findings of the impugned penalty order under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessing officer in the assessee’s case

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

aforesaid show cause notice, filed her reply dated 24.05.2017, which reads as under: "We refer to your notice in respect of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In connection to that, under the instructions of our above mentioned Assessee and on his behalf, we state and submit ... ultimately levied the penalty of Rs.2,28,41,400/- on account of filing of inaccurate particular of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as mentioned by the AO in para no.9 of the penalty order, by observing and holding as under: “That the Assessee