← 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)

Real Touch Multitrading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai

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

ITA 4414/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

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

assessee, there would not have any discloser on additional income by the assessee. Accordingly, he issued the show cause notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act and served on the assessee. The submissions made by the assessee are not found to be satisfactory and not voluntary ... Appeal) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty amounting to Rs. 5,75,673/- as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

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

assessee, there would not have any discloser on additional income by the assessee. Accordingly, he issued the show cause notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act and served on the assessee. The submissions made by the assessee are not found to be satisfactory and not voluntary ... Appeal) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty amounting to Rs. 5,75,673/- as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

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

assessee, there would not have any discloser on additional income by the assessee. Accordingly, he issued the show cause notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act and served on the assessee. The submissions made by the assessee are not found to be satisfactory and not voluntary ... Appeal) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty amounting to Rs. 5,75,673/- as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That

Panna Lal Goel, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-2, Bhiwani

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

ITA 3478/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 44A

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

Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2021/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 92C

deduction of lease rental as revenue expenditure. 3. That the learned AO erred in facts and law in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves to leave to add, withdraw, amend

B.K. Sales Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 36(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1498/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. B.K. Sales Corporation, Vs. Acit, Circle 36 (1), D-1, Gf 5, Virat Bhawan, New Delhi. Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Aaafb4846K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-12, New Delhi Dated 06.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Revenue : Disallowance Of Service Charges/Commission Paid To Six Hufs Rs.3196047 – A. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Ignored I. The Basic Fact Of The Assessee Being A Service Recipient Getting Such Services From Various Unrelated Entities.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and MS. MADHUMITA

Ajay Kumar Nirwan, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

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

been passed in a summary manner, stating “I find it a fit case for imposing penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it is an act of concealment of the particulars of his income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income ... order explaining how he came to the conclusion that this case was a fit case for imposition of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Moreover, the order of learned CIT(A) has also been passed ex-parte qua the assessee. The learned

Smt. Radhadevi Madhusudan Jajodia, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 84/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Himesh DambleFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 43C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Ram Prasad Sooda, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 13/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.13/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Ram Prasad Sooda Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.39-7-39/1, Sector-7 Ward-2(1) Murali Nagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Amups8258A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.Kalyana Sundar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAMBENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (through Hybrid Hearing) श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी

The Everest English Education Extension Society, Tilak Nagar, Dewas (M.P.) vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Ujjain

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

ITA 552/IND/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanithe Everest English Education Ito Extension Society Ujjain 83 Bhagat Singh Marg Meera Vs. Bawdi, Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabtt4223B Assessee By Shri Manoj Madnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2024

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Thunga Ramadoss Naidu Harikrishiniah, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1581/CHNY/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1581/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2001-02 V. Shri Thunga Ramadoss Naidu- The Dy. Commissioner – Harikrishniah, Of Income Tax, No.55, 4Th Flat, Door No.4, Central Circle-2(2), Gajapathi Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 030. [Pan: Aaaph 6730 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.S.LakshminarayananFor Respondent: Dr.D.Praveen, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeal is hereby disposed of for statistical purposes and the matter is

ITA 386/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,” B”-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys

Sunil Kumar Nayak, Jhunjhunu vs. Circle (International Taxation), Jaipur

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

ITA 148/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ld. Ao.

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Uttamchand Hastimal Jain, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1and 2, Tps, Vijayapur

ITA 567/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavuttamchand Hastimal Jain The Income Tax Officer Prop. Of Sumatinath Traders Ward - 1 & 2 (Tps) Kirana Bazar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Vijayapura 586101 Near All India Raido Pan – Addpj2783P Athani Road, Vijayapura 586104 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061137028(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 19.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-05. 2. Facts Leading To The Filing Of Present Appeal Are, The Assessee Is An Individual Running A Kirana Shop In Vijayapura, Karnataka. For The Impugned Assessment Year He Has Filed His Return Of Income(Roi) Declaring An Income Of Rs 4,72,780/- On 31.10.2014. Thereafter, An Information, Revealing That Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs. 3,10,13,708/- In Its Bank Account With Shri Gurubasava Urban Credit Souharda Co-Op. Ltd, Surfaced With Department. Accordingly The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 2 Uttamchand Hastimal Jain 148 Of The Vide Notice Dated 31.03.2021. In Response To The 148 Notice The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Declaring An Income Of Rs 21,68,535/-. While Concluding The Assessment The Ao Accepted The Revised Computation Without Any Demur. However, The Ao Simultaneously, Initiated Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Alleging That Assessee Has Concealed His Income. Afterwards, The Ao Vide Its Order Dated 26.09.2022, Levied Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

While concluding the assessment the AO accepted the revised computation without any demur. However, the AO simultaneously, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging that assessee has concealed his income. Afterwards, the AO vide its order dated 26.09.2022, levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... Aggrieved with the order of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the Ld CIT(A) and contended that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable as the AO has ultimately accepted the revised computation filed by assessee. Counsel of the assessee further pointed out that the additional

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 284/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

Income. Interest under section 234B 30. erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act of INR 59,140,659. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 31. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant

Amish Umesh Jani, Thane, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(5), Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 864/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member ITA No. 864 /Ahd/2024 Assessment Year

Alfiya Ayazali Sayyad, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the learned AO of Rs.45,00,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the learned AO erred. in not recording proper satisfaction in the show cause notice ... made. He further submitted that when the sales made by the assessee are accepted, the purchases cannot be doubted and hence penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be liveable. 8. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard

Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan:Aaacu5211A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 04.01.2024 & 05.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Has Been Preferred Assailing The Confirmation Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, Ita No.73/Kol/2024 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Is Consequential To The Quantum Additions Contested By The Assessee In Appeal No.72/Ko/2024. We First Take Quantum Appeal In Ita No.72/Kol/2024. I.T.A. No.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri

Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 72/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan:Aaacu5211A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 04.01.2024 & 05.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Has Been Preferred Assailing The Confirmation Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, Ita No.73/Kol/2024 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Is Consequential To The Quantum Additions Contested By The Assessee In Appeal No.72/Ko/2024. We First Take Quantum Appeal In Ita No.72/Kol/2024. I.T.A. No.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri