← 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)

Gnd Ispat Private Limited, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 725/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 725/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Gnd Ispat Private Limited, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 114C, Gnd Chambers, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Agrasen Chowk, Raipur, C. G. - 492001 Raipur, 8Th Floor, Cbd Building, Naya Raipur, C. G. - 492018 Pan: Aaccg6090K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], Raipur-3 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

erred in upholding the order of the Learned Assessing Officer, wherein the Assessing Officer levied penalty without specifying the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is untenable ... upholding the order of the Learned Assessing Officer, wherein the Assessing Officer has erred in levying penalty of Rs.4,40,454 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled

Prafulla Kumar Bidhara, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.763/CTK/2025 is partly allowed whereas ITA

ITA 764/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.763&764/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Prafulla Kumar Bidhara, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.763/CTK/2025 is partly allowed whereas ITA

ITA 763/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.763&764/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

ACIT, Circle -20(1), Mumbai vs. Utkarsha Vivek Parkar, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6513/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit Circle-20(1), Utkarsha Vivek Mumbai Parkar, Room No. 305, 3Rd Vs. 108, A-Wing, Byculla Floor, Piramal Service Industrial Chambers, Parel, Estate, D. K. Cross Mumbai – 400 012. Road, Byculla, Mumbai-400 027 Pan/Gir No. Agjpp4377J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Ld. Dr Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

added to the total income of the assessee. Consequently, the total income was assessed at Rs. 55,67,060/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated separately. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before

Gopalkrishna Narla Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6488/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishgopalkrishna Narla Rao, Income Tax Officer, A/12/46 Sunder Nagar Kalina, Ward 16(2)(4), Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400098 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpr 1916R Appellant By : Shri M Subramnian Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2026

For Appellant: Shri M SubramnianFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G-” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Abci Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle 1, Guwahati, Assam

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

ITA 419/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of ₹ 1,01,25,099/- as imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on account of concealment of particulars of income. ITA No. 418 & 419/GTY/2025 ABCI Infrastructure ... under Section 153A of the Act however in the assessment framed under Section 153A of the Act dated 29/09/2021, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice dated 29/09/2021 for concealment of particulars of income. A show cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) read

Abci Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle 1, Guwahati, Assam

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

ITA 418/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of ₹ 1,01,25,099/- as imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on account of concealment of particulars of income. ITA No. 418 & 419/GTY/2025 ABCI Infrastructure ... under Section 153A of the Act however in the assessment framed under Section 153A of the Act dated 29/09/2021, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice dated 29/09/2021 for concealment of particulars of income. A show cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) read

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Shillong vs. Meghalaya Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Lumjingshai, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 308/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 72Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'GAUHATI BENCH', GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA

Jahar Deb, Agartala vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Agartala

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 244/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `GAUHATI BENCH', GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA

Jahar Deb, Agartala vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Agartala

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 243/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'GAUHATI BENCH', GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA

Platinum Sales, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1156/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1156/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Platinum Sales, The Ito, Scf-10, Sector 9-D, बनाम Ward 2(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aanfp7207P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Phsyical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate & Sh. Atul Mandhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate, and Sh. Atul Mandhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

relied upon in Assessment Order, 5. That the Lrd. CIT(A) has been unjustified in upholding Penalty proceedings under the Provisions of Section 271(1)(c). 6. That the Lrd. CIT(A) has been unjustified in upholding Penalty proceedings under the Provisions of Section 271(1)(b). 7. That

Shri Ajay Mayor, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

held now.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and had concealed the particulars ... disclosed the said receipt in the return of income and therefore had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On this basis, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated and the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.82,91,261/- holding that the assessee had concealed income and furnished inaccurate

Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1091/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1091/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.11, Ward-1, Dhule Mohammadi Nagar, Jaihind Colony, Deopur, Dhule – 424 002 Maharashtra Pan : Anepp8171C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Granules India Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1289/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH, HYDERABAD श्री विजय

Dazzler Confectionery Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(1, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8411/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

specified any particular limb/charge for initiation of the penalty proceedings but, in fact, used ‘OR’ in between the limbs as specified in section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Recently, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 4 Dazzler Confectionery Company, Private Limited, M/s. Allied ... dated 30.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income and subsequently issued a notice dated 30.03.2014 under section 274 read with section 271

Sanjay Jain, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6650/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs Sanjay Jain, Ito, Ward-3(3)(1), 39, Mission Compound, Sahranpur-247001 Saharanpur-247001 Uttar Pradesh [Pan: Ackpj3369F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 and arises out of the penalty order dated 12-03-2018 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’]. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. That ... taxmann.com 597 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: “21. The respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton

Pbg International Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 2890/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpbg International Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-19(1), C.R. Building, Cb-4B, Dda Flats, Vs. Delhi-110002. Munirka, Delhi-110067. Pan-Aabcp8752E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Goyal, Ca Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By 20.01.2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income On 14.10.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,670/- Along With Computation Of Income, Auditors' Report & Audited Accounts Of The Assessee. Ld. Ao On Basis Of Incriminating & Tangible Information & After Following Due Process, Re-Opened Pbg International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 690

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

ITO, Ward- 2(5), Dehradun vs. Uttrakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3023/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 158ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 687/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

No.686/RPR/2026, following grounds have been raised: “1. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessee has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars ... 144B of the Act. Consequent to the assessment, the Ld. AO, later on, also levied penalties of Rs.40,41,788/- under section 271(1) (c) of the Act and Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved with the above mentioned assessment order and penalty orders

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 686/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

No.686/RPR/2026, following grounds have been raised: “1. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessee has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars ... 144B of the Act. Consequent to the assessment, the Ld. AO, later on, also levied penalties of Rs.40,41,788/- under section 271(1) (c) of the Act and Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved with the above mentioned assessment order and penalty orders