← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)”

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

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

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)

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)

Aeonx Digital Technology Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2406/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR. D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(4)(ii)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Maulana Azad Alpasankhyank Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the

ITA 2162/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 217Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Faceless Appeals Centre) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying penalty amounting to Rs. 30,000/- under section 271(1)(b); disregarding the factual and legal matrix of the case.” 6. Before proceeding further, we proceed to decide the application for condonation of delay ... thus supported and relied upon the judgment of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). 10. We have considered the submissions. Section 271 (1)(b) of the Act provides as under: “Section 271(1) If the Assessing Officer or the °%[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals

Maulana Azad Alpasankhyank Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the

ITA 2161/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 217Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Faceless Appeals Centre) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying penalty amounting to Rs. 30,000/- under section 271(1)(b); disregarding the factual and legal matrix of the case.” 6. Before proceeding further, we proceed to decide the application for condonation of delay ... thus supported and relied upon the judgment of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). 10. We have considered the submissions. Section 271 (1)(b) of the Act provides as under: “Section 271(1) If the Assessing Officer or the °%[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals

Nath Capital & Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 (2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6710/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 68

Ld.AO issued another show cause notice dated 26/03/2012. 2.2.1 In penalty, proceedings, the Ld.AO after considering relevant provision of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) and placing reliance on various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts, concluded that the assessee concealed particulars of income for the year under consideration ... within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 thereto. Accordingly, the Ld.AO worked out the minimum penalty @100% of tax sought to be evaded at Rs.1,03,58,712/-. Aggrieved by the penalty levied by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1488/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 50

income nor 3 ITA 1488/Mum/2016 LML Ltd included in the computation of income. The Ld.AO in the assessment order, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealing the particulars of income. During the quantum proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee withdrew the ground of the claim pertaining ... short term capital gain. 2.3. The Ld.AO, thus vide notice dated 28/03/2014 proposed to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to the showcause notice, the assessee responded vide its letter dated 07/03/2014. The Ld.AO, after considering the submissions of the assessee levied the penalty

Assistant Commissiner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Tata Teleservices Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2759/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumaracit, Vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd, 124, 10Th Floor, Jeevan Bharati Delhi Tower-I, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact2438A Co No. 82/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 2759/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Tata Teleservices Ltd, Vs. Acit, 124, 10Th Floor, Jeevan Delhi Bharati Tower-I, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact2438A Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Shri Divyanshu Singla, Ca Shri Prateek Chauhan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2024 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: 1. The Appeal In Ita No.2759/Del/2024 For Ay 2007-08, Arises Out Of The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Nfac‟, In Short] In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1063789663(1) Dated 31.03.2024 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 30.03.2018 By The Assessing Officer, Acit, Circle-25(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟).

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

available on record. We find that the ld. AR placed on record the show cause notice issued for penalty u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 24.12.2009 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed ... case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further

Nirmal Singh, Ayodhya vs. ITO Ward-1, Faizabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

income. The reassessment, being a result of what the AO considers concealed particulars of income, led to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee submitted a response to the show cause, citing various judicial decisions in support of its claims. The assessee ... income. The reassessment, being a result of what the AO considers concealed particulars of income, led to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee submitted a response to the show cause, citing various judicial decisions in support of its claims. The assessee

Sarojben Rajkumar Bansal Legal Heir of Late Rajkumar Kakaram Bansal, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 306/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.306/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sarojben Rajkumar Bansal The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Circle-1 V/S. Late Shri Rajkumar Kakaram Bhavnagar – 364 001 Bansal Plot No.1497/B, Opp. Theosophical Lodge Bhavnagar, Gujarat 364 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanpb 1618 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Year : 2013-14 represented unaccounted income and added it as unexplained cash credits under section 68. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 3. Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 23.04.2022. However

Late Paramjeet Singh Chawala (Gurneet Chawla Legal Heir), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2092/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarlate Paramjeet Singh Chawala Vs. Dcit, (Gurneet Chawla Legal Heir), Central Circle-Ii, C/O. R. C. Rai & Associates, Faridabad 203, 2Nd Floor, Akashdeep 26A, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Acwpc3161C

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Danesta, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

available on record. We find that the ld. AR placed on record the show cause notice issued for penalty u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 31.01.2014 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed ... case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1411/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 80Section 80I

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), cancelling the Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17. I.T.A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1403/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 80Section 80I

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), cancelling the Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17. I.T.A

Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy./Jt.CIT., (OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 620/AHD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

appellate orders dated 28.06.2023 and 11.07.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad arising out of the Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) and 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years ... Similarly Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. (cited supra) deleted the penalty levied by observing as follows: “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Penalty - For concealment of income- Assessment year 1973-74 After rejecting assessee's accounts, Assessing Officer assessed

Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy./Jt.CIT., (OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 619/AHD/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

appellate orders dated 28.06.2023 and 11.07.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad arising out of the Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) and 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years ... Similarly Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. (cited supra) deleted the penalty levied by observing as follows: “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Penalty - For concealment of income- Assessment year 1973-74 After rejecting assessee's accounts, Assessing Officer assessed

Mohini Srivastava, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhopal

ITA 255/IND/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Mohini Shrivastava, Ito 1(1), Hig-2/3,Geetanjali Complex, Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acwps6390R Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2024 O R D E R

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

receive the Sale Consideration of Rs. 30,08,800/- resulting into Concealment of Income in filing inaccurate Particulars thereof attracting Provisions of Section 271(1)(c). 03. The assessee craves leave to add or amend any other grounds of appeal at the me of hearing

Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2353/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 17Section 250

No.2353/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2007-08 : 15. The captioned appeal is against the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act flowing from the re-assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Act under challenge in ITA No. 2352/Del/2024 (supra). The reassessment order having been quashed, the very ... foundation for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is crumbled. Resultantly, penalty imposed from a non-est reassessment order automatically stands vacated. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2353/Del/2024 is also allowed. 17. Resultantly, both the captioned appeals of the assessee

Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2352/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 17Section 250

No.2353/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2007-08 : 15. The captioned appeal is against the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act flowing from the re-assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Act under challenge in ITA No. 2352/Del/2024 (supra). The reassessment order having been quashed, the very ... foundation for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is crumbled. Resultantly, penalty imposed from a non-est reassessment order automatically stands vacated. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2353/Del/2024 is also allowed. 17. Resultantly, both the captioned appeals of the assessee

Sector 113 Gatevida Private Limited (Formerly Knwon As Lemon Tree Land and Developers Private Limited), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1622/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareeksector 113 Gatevida Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 4 (1), (Formerly Known As Lemon Tree Land & Gurgaon. Developers Private Limited), Plot No.6, J Block, Community Centre V, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. (Pan : Aaccl2552R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sukh Sagar Syal, Advocate Shri Nilay Jhaveri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 Date Of Order : 09.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sukh Sagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee has raised various grounds, at the outset, ld. Counsel of the assessee contended that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c)of the Act is a defective one. He submitted that the charge has not been specified in the notice, hence referring to various ... same is reproduced below :- 5 10.1 We note that assessee has duly raised issue against the assumption of jurisdiction for the levy of section 271(1)(c) that in the penalty notice, relevant limb was not specified whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing

Sunil Kumar Nagar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Faridabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.2118/Del/2019 is allowed

ITA 247/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

which the proceedings were initiated, were not indicated in the notice itself. 25. against the assumption of jurisdiction for the levy of section 271(1)(c) that in the penalty notice, relevant limb was not struck off to specify whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or furnishing

Sunil Kumar Nagar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Faridabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.2118/Del/2019 is allowed

ITA 2118/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

which the proceedings were initiated, were not indicated in the notice itself. 25. against the assumption of jurisdiction for the levy of section 271(1)(c) that in the penalty notice, relevant limb was not struck off to specify whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or furnishing

Santosh Maruti Pawar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1311/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1311/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Maruti Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. At Post Gopal Wadi, Daund, Pune- 413801. Pan : Bhrpp4140F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shir Paras Munot Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly. The Ld. Ar With The Help Of Delay Condonation Application Supported With An Affidavit Submitted That The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Submitting The Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Was Suffering From Hepatomegaly & Undergoing

For Appellant: Shir Paras MunotFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 3

factual position of the same. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 271(1)(b). 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in levying penalty of Rs.1,56,560/- under section 271(1