← 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)

Rakesh Bhatt, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi

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

ITA 1181/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanbhl Forex & Finlease Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle - 2, 6, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi. Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aabcb8886H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Gini Gandhi, Advocate Ms. Anu Bajaj, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 11.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). In This Regard, He Submitted That Assessee Has Filed Its Original Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Of The Act Which Was Belated Return & Declared The Loss. As Per The Provisions Of The Act, The Losses Declared In The Belated Returns

For Appellant: Ms. Gini Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). In this regard, he submitted that assessee has filed its original return of income

R V Interior Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 452/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

234D of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the assessing officer. The Appellant craves leave to add and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before

Harvinder Singh Bullar, Vpo Ranjitgarh, Muktsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar

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

ITA 574/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahayi.T.A. No.574/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

Muhammedali Suhara, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1009/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

Muhammedali Suhara, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

Muhammedali Suhara, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1007/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

Nasimbanu Mirza, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(8)- Currently the ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 376/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 376/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Nasimbanu Mirza Ito B/67, Mayurpark Society, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Opp. Bibi Talab, Vatva, Daskroi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 382440 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bfkpm6262E (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Foziya Saiyed, A.R. Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 25/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Foziya Saiyed, A.RFor Respondent: 25/03/2025
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

income be deleted. Also, ITA Nos. 376/Ahd/2024 [Nasimbanu Mirza] - 3 – A.Y. 2011-12 consequent penalties / late fees / fine under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) or any other section and interest under section 234A,234B, 234C, 234D or any other section should be deleted. 4). The appellant craves

Mayur Stones, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1093/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1092 & 1093/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Mayur Stones Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aarfm5050H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V. Sriram Niwas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate V. Sriram NiwasFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

ITA Nos 1092 and 1093 of 2024 Mayur Stones आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Mayur Stones, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1092/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1092 & 1093/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Mayur Stones Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aarfm5050H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V. Sriram Niwas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate V. Sriram NiwasFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

ITA Nos 1092 and 1093 of 2024 Mayur Stones आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Ajay Multi Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 587/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ajay Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-4(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, C.J. House, 285 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Princess Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aadca 0338 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Dharan Gandhi
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

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

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 536/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 470/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 469/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 468/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 467/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 466/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 248/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice-not striking off the irrelevant matter-vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181.It does. The primary burden lies ... opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the Appellant. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 247/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice-not striking off the irrelevant matter-vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181.It does. The primary burden lies ... opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the Appellant. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite

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

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

ITA 246/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice-not striking off the irrelevant matter-vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181.It does. The primary burden lies ... opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the Appellant. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite