← 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)

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied ... disclosure of income with a view to buy peace with the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1839/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied ... disclosure of income with a view to buy peace with the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied ... disclosure of income with a view to buy peace with the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied ... disclosure of income with a view to buy peace with the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied ... disclosure of income with a view to buy peace with the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied ... disclosure of income with a view to buy peace with the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income

Aakash Value Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

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

Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

research activities. 5 Aakash Value Realty Pvt. Ltd., Accordingly, the entire deduction of ₹1,79,37,500/- was disallowed and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 9. The learned CIT(A) affirmed the disallowance. He recorded that one of the employees of VYASA had opened and operated

Madhav Jewellers, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadab, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

quantum assessment has already been restored back to the file of Assessing Officer in ITA No.701/RJT/2025, therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, would not survive. However, the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings, if any, in accordance with

Madhav Jewellers, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 700/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadab, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

quantum assessment has already been restored back to the file of Assessing Officer in ITA No.701/RJT/2025, therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, would not survive. However, the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings, if any, in accordance with

Mukesh Jain, Indore vs. The ACIT (Central)-2, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 928/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: CA Sh. S.N. AgrawalFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

1,00,000/- was made under section 69 for A.Y. 2015-16 as unexplained investments, taxable under section 115BBE. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals

Mukesh Jain, Indore vs. The ACIT (Central)-2, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

ITA 927/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani1. Ι.Τ.Α. No.927/Ind/2024 – Asst.Year 2015-16 2. Ι.Τ.Α. No.928/Ind/2024 – Asst. Year 2014-15 Mukesh Jain C/O. S.V. Agrawal & Associates Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Near Rafael Tower Old Palasia 452 001 (Μ.Ρ.) Pan No. Abfpj 3732 L (Appellant) The Acit (Central)-2, Indore 452 001 (Respondent) Assessee By : Revenue By Ca Sh. S.N. Agrawal Sh. Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 Order Per Siddhartha Nautiyal - Jm: Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “The Cit(A)] Dated 23/10/2024 Passed For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Common Facts & Issues For Consideration Are Involved For Both The Years Under Consideration Before Us, These Appeals Are Being Taken Up Together (Grounds Extracted From Ay 2014- 15).

For Appellant: Revenue by
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

1,00,000/- was made under section 69 for A.Y. 2015-16 as unexplained investments, taxable under section 115BBE. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1868/PUN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order under section 271(1)(c) on 12.08.2024 mechanically ignoring the fact that the Penalty Order on the issue involved was already passed under section 271(1 ... their direction and the Ld Assessing Officer was not justified in passing fresh Assessment Order on 28.02.2024 and in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1867/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order under section 271(1)(c) on 12.08.2024 mechanically ignoring the fact that the Penalty Order on the issue involved was already passed under section 271(1 ... their direction and the Ld Assessing Officer was not justified in passing fresh Assessment Order on 28.02.2024 and in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1866/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order under section 271(1)(c) on 12.08.2024 mechanically ignoring the fact that the Penalty Order on the issue involved was already passed under section 271(1 ... their direction and the Ld Assessing Officer was not justified in passing fresh Assessment Order on 28.02.2024 and in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1865/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order under section 271(1)(c) on 12.08.2024 mechanically ignoring the fact that the Penalty Order on the issue involved was already passed under section 271(1 ... their direction and the Ld Assessing Officer was not justified in passing fresh Assessment Order on 28.02.2024 and in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed

M/S Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, Circle- 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1864/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld Assessing Officer passed Penalty Order under section 271(1)(c) on 12.08.2024 mechanically ignoring the fact that the Penalty Order on the issue involved was already passed under section 271(1 ... their direction and the Ld Assessing Officer was not justified in passing fresh Assessment Order on 28.02.2024 and in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed

Gopal Banik, Kolkata vs. PCIT(Central), Kolkata -2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1430/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Gopal Banik…….…………..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 20, Apc Road, Kol- 700009.. [Pan: Aegpb1186E] Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K K Khemka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 174 Days & The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(7)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) held as under: “…the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section

Mukul Kumar Yadav, Gurgaon vs. CIT Appeals, NFAC

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

ITA 6275/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 250(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 68

supporting evidence furnished by the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5. The AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without establishing deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant;” 3. Brief facts

Sh. Mukesh Singla & Sons (HUF), Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4836/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2014-15 Sh. Mukesh Singla & Sons (Huf), Vs. Dcit, Circle 28(1), 64, Bhagwan Budha New Delhi Cooperative Society, Second Floor, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034 (Pan: Aaihm2755E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Saksham Agrawal, Ca Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Arora, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. SakshamFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Arora, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

could be imposed for the first default made by the assessee in this regard. In our view, the penalty under section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed for each and every notice issued under section 142(1), which remained not complied with on the part of the assessee ... provision of Section 271(1)(b) is of deterrent nature and not for earning revenue. In this view of the matter, we restrict the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice under section 142(1

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Anil Kumar Jain, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the department of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2964/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Anil Kumar Jain, Central Circle-26, 4733/22, Prakash Deep Building, New Delhi 2Nd Floor, Daryaganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagpj2715D

For Appellant: Shri Prem Lamba, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order passes by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eyes of law & on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld Commissioner ... that all the facts relating to the same have been disclosed & as such no penalty can be levied even under explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in levying