← 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)

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1124/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

cross objections by the assessee arise out of two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) 3. Briefly the facts, more or less common in both the assessment years ... that as it may, based on the additions sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately passed orders imposing penalty of Rs.12,02,18,674/- and Rs.8,76,74,041/- for the assessment years

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4589/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

cross objections by the assessee arise out of two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) 3. Briefly the facts, more or less common in both the assessment years ... that as it may, based on the additions sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately passed orders imposing penalty of Rs.12,02,18,674/- and Rs.8,76,74,041/- for the assessment years

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4588/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

cross objections by the assessee arise out of two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) 3. Briefly the facts, more or less common in both the assessment years ... that as it may, based on the additions sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately passed orders imposing penalty of Rs.12,02,18,674/- and Rs.8,76,74,041/- for the assessment years

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3449/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

cross objections by the assessee arise out of two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) 3. Briefly the facts, more or less common in both the assessment years ... that as it may, based on the additions sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately passed orders imposing penalty of Rs.12,02,18,674/- and Rs.8,76,74,041/- for the assessment years

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3448/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

cross objections by the assessee arise out of two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) 3. Briefly the facts, more or less common in both the assessment years ... that as it may, based on the additions sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately passed orders imposing penalty of Rs.12,02,18,674/- and Rs.8,76,74,041/- for the assessment years

Anil Premchand Motiramani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Thane

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

ITA 3017/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Pratap N. Sharma
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 54F

31st October, 2022 that when I received notice from the Assessing Officer requiring me to show cause as to why penalty under section 271(1)c should not be levied, I scanned through my e-filing portal and downloaded the CIT(A) order. I, thereafter, immediately sent the order together

Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 672/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 672/Del/2018 (A.Y 2008-09)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 234BSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 43B

erred on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law in mechanically initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. Subhash Pd. Yadav, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 275

observed as under:- “Office may please issue DN/refund and challan accordingly. Penalty proceedings 2 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Subhash Pd. Yadav under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for concealment of income”. 5. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter imposed a penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income ... Explanation appended to section 271AAB(1A). The penalty is not imposable upon the assesesee under this section. It could have been possible under section 271(1)(c) at the most. Even otherwise, the penalty was initiated for imposing under section 271(1)(c) but that was not imposed upon

Murliwala Agrotech Private Limited, Rajasthan vs. DCIT Circle-14, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Murliwala Agrotech Private Limited, Vs Dcit, G-20-245, Ricco Industrial Area, Circle-14, Gudli Udaipur, Delhi. Rajasthan – 313024. Pan: Aaccm0796Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Susheel Kumar, Ca & Ms Archana Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.609/Del/2022 For Ay 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.10255/19-20 Dated 10.12.2021 Against The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.06.2019 Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Udaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri Susheel Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

Mini Tradex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8029/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Mini Tradex Private Limited, Vs Ito, C/O Rohit Tiwari, Ward-16(4), 8024, Ats Greens Paradiso, New Delhi. Chi Iv, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201310. Pan: Aagcm0239E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.8029/Del/2019 For Ay 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-6/10103/18-19 Dated 07.05.2019 Against The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 18.06.2018 Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-16(4), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Ms Tanya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

Joseph Leslie & Company LLP, Mumbai vs. Circle 22(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 297/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Joseph Leslie & Company Llp, Circle 22(1), 3Rd Floor, Leslico House, Piramal Chamber, Vs. Bhavani Shankar Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aahfj 7149 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 2Section 36Section 43B

Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd., (2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC) In the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. amendment to section 271(1)(c) was held to be prospective by the Apex Court, as the statute categorically stated that it would apply w.e.f. 01.04.2003. On this ground, the Supreme ... However, subsequently while deciding the case of Raman Lal C. Hathi, the Apex Court once again examined the same amendment to section 271(1)(c), and came to the conclusion that the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (supra) needed reconsideration

Bhavesh Punmaji Devasi, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1693/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R
Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Sushila Goyal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 22(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3012/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargsushila Goyal Vs. Ito Flat No.4, Rr Apartments Ward – 22(3), 3-4, Mangalpuri, Mehrauli New Delhi New Delhi – 110 030 Pan No. Ajspg 2559 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Gandhi, C.A. Revenue By Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023

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

Appeals)-25, has erred both in law and on facts in confirming penalty of Rs.1,71,411/ levied by assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, has erred both in law and on facts ... confirming penalty of Rs. 1,71,411/- levied by assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the order passed by Ld AO was in absence of granting proper opportunity of being heard to appellant. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income

Gtpl Rajwadi Network Pvt. Ltd., Bamroli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Delhi (in short, NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) dated 05.01.2023 which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 28.06.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows

Shri Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 205/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat Income Tax Officer, Ward- 55,V.T. Nagar, Near Sarthana 3(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Jakatnaka, Varachha, Majura Gate, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 Pan No: Adkpk 2173 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

which in turn arises out against the penalty levied by Assessing Officer/ Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5) Surat, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 24.06.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1 ... offered before assessment proceedings. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. I order accordingly. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. In the result

Pearl Biofuel P Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 225/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrypearl Biofuel Pvt. Ltd. 601, 6Th Floor, Western Palace, Link Road, Mumbai-400092. Pan: Aaagcp4845H ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Ms. Mona Kakwana, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Prakash Rastogi
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69B

Addition u/s. 69B Rs. 7,49,95,752/- and consequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and vide penalty order dated 30.09.2016 imposed the penalty of Rs. 4,04,95,809/- @ of 100% of the tax sought

I.G.International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Central Circle- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.123/मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2015-16) I.G. International Pvt. Ltd. 802, 8Th Floor, Akshar Bluechip Building, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400 705. Pan: Aacci-2508-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit – Central Circle – 1(3), 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/ Shri Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri V.S.Mahajan, Sr. A.R सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/ Shri Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: Shri V.S.Mahajan, Sr. A.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

submitted that the notice dated 31/05/2018 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is defective, as both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are mentioned therein. The Assessing Officer has not struck off the irrelevant clause in the said notice. To support ... particulars of income”. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are invoked i.e. “ concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. Both the limbs are mentioned with conjunction

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 34/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

reasonable cause for the said failure". As noticed, if the statutory provision shows that the word "shall" has been used in Section 271(1)(b), then the imposition of penalty would have been mandatory. Section 273B as mentioned above further throws light on the legislative intent as it specifically provides ... assessment proceedings was considered as a good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by Assessing Officer and, therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified. As find that similar view was followed in a series of decisions as has been relied

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 33/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

reasonable cause for the said failure". As noticed, if the statutory provision shows that the word "shall" has been used in Section 271(1)(b), then the imposition of penalty would have been mandatory. Section 273B as mentioned above further throws light on the legislative intent as it specifically provides ... assessment proceedings was considered as a good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by Assessing Officer and, therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified. As find that similar view was followed in a series of decisions as has been relied

Shri Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2 (1), Amritsar

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 32/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

reasonable cause for the said failure". As noticed, if the statutory provision shows that the word "shall" has been used in Section 271(1)(b), then the imposition of penalty would have been mandatory. Section 273B as mentioned above further throws light on the legislative intent as it specifically provides ... assessment proceedings was considered as a good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by Assessing Officer and, therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified. As find that similar view was followed in a series of decisions as has been relied