← 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)

M/S. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Income for AY 2015-16, stands at Rs. 29,25,56,895/- with no differential income reported. Consequently, a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued to the appellant on 27.12.2017. The AO concluded that the case of the assessee fell under explanation ... section 271(1)(c) of the Act, meeting all the necessary criteria specified in section 271(1)(c) to impose a penalty for the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, a penalty of ITA No.531 & 532/Bang/2024 M/s. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore Page 4 of 36 Rs.1

Mr. Naresh Topandas Aidasani, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi/ DCIT-27(2), Vashi, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 105/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(2)

under: "I am presenting before Your Honour my appeal under section 246A of the Act against the penalty order dated 28.02.2022 under section 271(1)(c) passed by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (AO), for the assessment year 2012-13 imposing a penalty of Rs. 17,51,503. The impugned ... what this liability represents. It is then that it came to light that there was a penalty order dated 28.02.2022 under section 271(1)(c) which I was not even aware of. Then, it is only on tracing the past emails, it came to light that my staff had omitted

K & S Fincon Pvt. Ltd., U.P vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 550/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Life Care International, Indore

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 411/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Life Care International, Income-Tax, 37-38, Lasudia Mori, बनाम/ 1(1), Dewas Naka, Vs. Indore. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabfl5181G Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024

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

separate appeal against penalty-order whereupon the CIT(A) has deleted penalty by concluding thus: “Since the quantum on which the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied has been deleted by Hon’ble ITAT, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has no basis and is held

Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers Private Limited, Madurai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 794/CHNY/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.794/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers – The Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2, 285/91 B, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai. Madurai-625 001. [Pan: Aarcs 2844 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act or not ? On perusal of the SCN dated 31.12.2016, we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are given therein i.e. “the assessee have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnished M/s.Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers ... Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section

Saifullah Abdullah Khan, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Thane

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1949/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. A.R
Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) Delhi’s DIN & order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060913983(1) dated 14.02.2024, in proceedings under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 Shri Saifullah Abdullah Khan 2. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest ... hearing of the appeal.” 4. Learned departmental representative has vehemently supported both the lower authorities’ respective findings 3 Shri Saifullah Abdullah Khan levying section 271(1)(c) penalty in assessee’s hands thereby treating it as a case of concealment of taxable income. We notice in this factual backdrop that

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 618/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

time gap of more than three years In the assessment order dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer has noted that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be initiated separately. However, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the Addl. CIT to initiate the proceedings ... under section 27ID of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 617/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

time gap of more than three years In the assessment order dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer has noted that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be initiated separately. However, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the Addl. CIT to initiate the proceedings ... under section 27ID of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 616/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

time gap of more than three years In the assessment order dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer has noted that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be initiated separately. However, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the Addl. CIT to initiate the proceedings ... under section 27ID of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 615/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

time gap of more than three years In the assessment order dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer has noted that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be initiated separately. However, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the Addl. CIT to initiate the proceedings ... under section 27ID of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 614/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

time gap of more than three years In the assessment order dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer has noted that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be initiated separately. However, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the Addl. CIT to initiate the proceedings ... under section 27ID of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 613/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

time gap of more than three years In the assessment order dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer has noted that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be initiated separately. However, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the Addl. CIT to initiate the proceedings ... under section 27ID of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 612/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

time gap of more than three years In the assessment order dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer has noted that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be initiated separately. However, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the Addl. CIT to initiate the proceedings ... under section 27ID of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 611/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

time gap of more than three years In the assessment order dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer has noted that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be initiated separately. However, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the Addl. CIT to initiate the proceedings ... under section 27ID of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer

Shri Bhagwanbhai Ranchhodbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1076/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

expenditure and not accepting the explanation filed before the AO does not fall within the ambit, scope and rigors of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and relied on the decision of Reliance Petro Products Ltd. and others. However, the contention of the appellant ... expenditure and hiding the income from house property. ……. 3.12. The law relating to penalty was amended w.e.f. 01.04.1976 and original Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) was replaced by the present one. After this amendment, the revenue is not required to prove that assessee is guilty of any fraud

Late Bhagwatsinh Jibhubhai Chavda)L/H.Bhaktiben Bhagwatsinh Chavda, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1075/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

expenditure and not accepting the explanation filed before the AO does not fall within the ambit, scope and rigors of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and relied on the decision of Reliance Petro Products Ltd. and others. However, the contention of the appellant ... expenditure and hiding the income from house property. ……. 3.12. The law relating to penalty was amended w.e.f. 01.04.1976 and original Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) was replaced by the present one. After this amendment, the revenue is not required to prove that assessee is guilty of any fraud

Bhaktiben Bhagwatsinh Chavda, (L/H of Late Bhagwatsinh J Chavda), Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-14(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 511/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

expenditure and not accepting the explanation filed before the AO does not fall within the ambit, scope and rigors of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and relied on the decision of Reliance Petro Products Ltd. and others. However, the contention of the appellant ... expenditure and hiding the income from house property. ……. 3.12. The law relating to penalty was amended w.e.f. 01.04.1976 and original Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) was replaced by the present one. After this amendment, the revenue is not required to prove that assessee is guilty of any fraud

Shri Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

expenditure and not accepting the explanation filed before the AO does not fall within the ambit, scope and rigors of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and relied on the decision of Reliance Petro Products Ltd. and others. However, the contention of the appellant ... expenditure and hiding the income from house property. ……. 3.12. The law relating to penalty was amended w.e.f. 01.04.1976 and original Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) was replaced by the present one. After this amendment, the revenue is not required to prove that assessee is guilty of any fraud

Sankarlingam Sankar Through His Legal Heir Ganesh Shankar, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 708/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aadesh Kumar AgrariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273BSection 274

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act were initiated and show cause notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued on 03/12/2019. After the introduction of the Faceless Penalty Scheme, 2019, another show cause notices were issued to the assessee to explain

Sankarlingam Sankar Through His Legal Heir Ganesh Shankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 706/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aadesh Kumar AgrariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273BSection 274

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act were initiated and show cause notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued on 03/12/2019. After the introduction of the Faceless Penalty Scheme, 2019, another show cause notices were issued to the assessee to explain