← 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)

S S Total Construction (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6344/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhrys. S. Total Construction Vs. Acit (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 24(1) 22/20A, Tilak Nagar New Delhi New Delhi – 110 018 Pan No. Aaocs 8888 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri B. M. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

record satisfaction and thereafter come to a finding in respect of one of the limbs, which is specified under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The first step is to record satisfaction while completing the assessment as to whether the 4 assessee had concealed the income or furnished inaccurate

Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6249/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

High Court has laid down the following exposition:- “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory ... observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

Paramjeet Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6222/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

response to this notice, no one attended nor any reply was filed. Therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued penalty notice under section 271(1)(b) r.w. section 274 of the Act on 08.10.2018 fixing the date of compliance on 17.10.2018. On that date also no compliance was made. Neither ... anybody attended nor any reply was filed. The Ld. AO, therefore, passed penalty order under section 271(1)(b) of the Act separately on 18.10.2018 for AY 2011-12 to AY 2017-18 imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for each of the above seven assessment years. 4. Aggrieved

Dharam Pal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -42(5), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5811/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Department by: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. D. R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54B

learned CIT (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty order where none of basic conditions specified in section 271(1)(c) has been satisfied.” 3 Shri Dharampal, New Delhi 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment order came to be passed against

Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1187/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

That on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as not adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A).” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel submitted that

Samrajyam Kondru, Krishna District vs. JCIT, Range-1, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Samrajyam Kondru Vs. Jcit, Range-1 20-130 Tb Road Vijayawada Ramannapeta Bus Stop Nandigama Post & Mandal Krishna Dist [Pan : Bfmpk8467H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Prasad Talluri, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Prasad TalluriFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

regarding penalty proceedings under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8914/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 13.08.2019 arising from the penalty order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2012-13. 2. As per the captioned appeals, the assessee has challenged the imposition ... penalty of Rs.72,25,64,867/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. When the matter was called for the hearing, the ld. DR for the Revenue made references to the assessment order, penalty order and placed reliance on such orders. I.T.A. No.8914/Del/2019

Reliant Healthcare Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4882/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

them as per Form No. 16 meaning thereby that TDS to that extent was not deducted. The Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2 4. In quantum appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed partial relief on the addition ... addition of Rs. 11,52,572/-. Thereafter, the Ld. AO passed penalty order on 31.03.2018 imposing penalty of Rs. 29,69,501/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Against the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before

Mesers Alfa Mechanical & Electricals Engineering Works, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Oficer Ward 3 (1), Srinagar

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

ITA 99/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Umar Rashid Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

bench. The delay was explained by the assessee. Due to wrong advise of consultant, the assessee filed appeal in delay against the order section 271(1)(c) before the ITAT. The ld, CIT(A) first served the order related to penalty. The assessee was waiting for quantum appeal

M/S Alfa Mechanical & Electricals Engineering Works, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Srinagar

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

ITA 137/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Umar Rashid Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

bench. The delay was explained by the assessee. Due to wrong advise of consultant, the assessee filed appeal in delay against the order section 271(1)(c) before the ITAT. The ld, CIT(A) first served the order related to penalty. The assessee was waiting for quantum appeal

Lr2 Management K/S [As Foreign Commr. Manager/Agent of Principal Freight Beneficiary, Torm A/S], Jamnagar vs. The Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Inter. Taxa., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2013-14 Lrs Management K/S (As Foreign Vs. Dcit (International Commercial Manager/ Agent Of Taxation), Rajkot. Principal Freight Beneficiary, Torm Gujarat. A/S) Correspondence Address: Interocean Shipping India P.Ltd. 301-Milestone P.N. Marg, Panchwati, Opp: Triveni Apartments Jamnagar 361 002. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Manish Kanth, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kanth, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 172(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

pointed out that the issue pertains to levy of penalty for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), as being invalid for the reason that the appeal ... aside. 6. On merits of the case, it is an admitted fact that the addition on which penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the ITAT. We have noted from the assessmentorder, and copy of the penalty order before us that the assessee

Mr. Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

bad/vague penalty notice was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court [though in a different context i.e notice issued u/s.274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act] in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein ... Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Court on ground of unspecified notice has held as under:- “Section 274, read with section 271(1)(c), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – Procedure for imposition of (Conditions precedent) – Assessment year 2009-10 – Tribunal, relying on decision of Division Bench

DCIT, Circle-23(1), New Delhi vs. Shawanotel India P.Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 274

427/2019 & ITA 429/2019][Delhi HC](Dated 02.08.2019) while observing as under:- “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton ... observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka

Anika International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3348/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Nida Sultan, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory: 359 ITR 565 held that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where ... mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. 2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs ACIT Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, order

Siddarthini Nanda, Nayasarak, Cuttack vs. Asst. CIT( Circle-1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 197/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.196/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Indu Devi Tibarewal, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, At/Po: Nayasarak, Bhubaneswar Cuttack-753002 Pan No. :Acxpt 4424 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.197/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Siddarthini Nanda, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Nayasarak, Bhubaneswar Cuttack-753002 Pan No. :Abapn 0104 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Karnataka), wherein it has specifically mentioned that the notice u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act, must specify the sub-clause mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Sending printed form wherein ... grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are mentioned, would not meet the satisfaction of law. It was the submission that in the circumstances taking up the penalty proceedings on one limb and finding of the AO on another limb

Indu Devi Tibarewal, Cuttack vs. Asst.CIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 196/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.196/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Indu Devi Tibarewal, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, At/Po: Nayasarak, Bhubaneswar Cuttack-753002 Pan No. :Acxpt 4424 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.197/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Siddarthini Nanda, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Nayasarak, Bhubaneswar Cuttack-753002 Pan No. :Abapn 0104 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Karnataka), wherein it has specifically mentioned that the notice u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act, must specify the sub-clause mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Sending printed form wherein ... grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are mentioned, would not meet the satisfaction of law. It was the submission that in the circumstances taking up the penalty proceedings on one limb and finding of the AO on another limb

S P Associates Management Consultants Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT(OSD) Ward-22(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1807/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Tamrakar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeetandra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 17.08.2020 arising from the penalty order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2016-17. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged ... defiance of law or was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct or acted in concious disregard of its obligations. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. In the instant case, the assessee demonstrated its bona fide

Dhaval Maheshbhai Ganatra, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1)

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

ITA 246/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Dhaval Maheshbhai Ganatra, Income Tax Officer, Puka Park, Vs. Ward 3(1)(1), B/H. Hudco Police Chowky, Rajkot. Kothariya Main Road, Rajkot-360002. Pan: Aompg8373G

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

Once, the quantum addition has been set aside to the file of the AO, the question of levying penalty under the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not arise. It is for the reason that the penalty is levied under the provision of section 271(1

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 399/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

decision. In ITA No. 393 to 397/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 398 & 399/Srt/2022 ... r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 398/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

decision. In ITA No. 393 to 397/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 398 & 399/Srt/2022 ... r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that