← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)5,698 judgments

HIMANSHU DAKSHESHKUMAR KATWALA,KHAMBHAT ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/AHD/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hardik J Raval & Vivek D Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

section 154 read with section 147, wherein the Assessing Officer had only rectified the penalty provision by substituting section 271AAC in place of section 271(1)(c), without making any change to the assessed income or addition. 7. With respect to the grounds relating to reopening of assessment under section

PRAVIN VASANT MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE41(4)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 9024/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

assessee against the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009–10. 2 Pravin Vasant Mehta 2. The sole grievance of the assessee ... account for possible inflation of purchase price or profit suppression. 5. Thus, in our considered view, the very edifice of penalty under section 271(1)(c) collapses in the absence of any cogent material demonstrating either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The estimation of gross profit, howsoever

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2572/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act taxable at the rate of 30% u/s 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for concealment of income of ₹81,50,000/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before

MANOJ RAJARAM SHARMA,THANE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8313/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmanoj Rajaram Ito - 42(3)(4), Sharma, Mumbai Office No. 615, 6Th Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, C- Floor, Centura Square 41-43, Avenue 3, Near It Park, Sg Barve Videsh Bhavan, G Road, Thane, Block, Bkc, Mumbai Maharashtra-400 604. – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Bytps1944K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suryadev Yadav, Shri Karan Hariya & Shri Prashant Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 4Section 44A

Appellant received the first physical notice by speed post, a prompt response was submitted. The Ld. Commissioner further erred in sustaining penalty under Section 271(1)(d), as there was no wilful non-compliance. The Appellant seeks an opportunity to submit proof of income sources and prays for waiver

BHANUSHANKAR KASALSHIBHAI DAVE,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Mar 2026AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nSURAT BENCH, BENCH\n[Conducted through Hybrid mode at Ahmedabad Bench]\nBEFORE

GND ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, 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

ACIT,CIRCLE -20(1),MUMBAI, 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

AKSHIT MAHESH KARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6052/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

facts in ignoring that the penalty imposed is invalid and void as it has\nbeen imposed in violation of the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act that a penalty\nof Rs.10,000/- may be imposed for each default but the A.O. has imposed a single penalty

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, 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, 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

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

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

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, 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,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

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO,WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 685/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

JAGDISHCHANDRA SHANTILAL CHHATRALIA,GUJARAT vs. ASSESING OFICER, RAJKOT

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

ITA 623/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC)\nerred in upholding the penalty of ₹2,87,850 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, without considering the merits of the case. The CIT(A)'s decision\nis erroneous as it failed to appreciate ... ncondoned the delay in the quantum appeal and directed the CIT(A) to decide the case\non its merits.\n4. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\nis not justified, as there was no deliberate intention to conceal income. The appellant's\nexplanation regarding

DAWAT E ISLAMI AP,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1575/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1575/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dawat E Islami Ap, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Exemption Ward-1(1), Pan: Aabtd5383Q Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ca (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Dawat E Islami Ap, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25/07/2025 For The A.Y.2015-16. Dawat E Islami Ap Vs. Ito

Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

mentioning in the Assessment Order as well as in penalty notice issued on 19-12-2017 as to exactly under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was triggered and Initiated ... appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) levied penalty of Rs.6,45,172/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2015–16 vide order dated 24.12.2021. Aggrieved by the penalty order

KURUZU RUSSELIAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied u/s

ITA 2830/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

filing the appeal belatedly and that the same could not have been the intent of the appellant. 5. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the appellant had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, which are mandatory ... which was duly explained in the condonation petition. 8. For that, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) without properly considering the facts of the case. 9. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions

Showing 1–20 of 5,698 · Page 1 of 285

...