“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)

Corteva Agriscience Seeds Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Phi Seeds Private Limited), Telangana vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1422/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmacorteva Agriscience Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy Seeds Pvt. Ld. (Formerly Assistant Commissioner Of Known As Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd.) Income Tax, Circle 4(2) V- Ascendas, Atria Block, Cr Building 12Th Floor, Plot 17, New Delhi Software Units Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad Telangana India – 500081 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccp3920F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT, DR

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

find same reasonable or sufficient cause which could salvage the assessee from the levy of penalty. Ld. AO held that; “Provisions of section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 are applicable in assessee's case as both concealment of income and filling P a g e | 6 Corteva ... perusal of the assessment order it comes up that while making disallowances and additions the ld. AO initiated the penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that assessee had furnished ‘inaccurate particulars’ of income. The impugned penalty order mentions that a show cause

Vodafone West Limited, (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

section 14A of the Act while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Ground no 8-Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ITAs No.671 & 1634/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... based on the directions of learned DRP, has erred in initiating penalty proceedings against the Appellant under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had neither concealed any information nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income in its return of income.” 4. The issue

The Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

section 14A of the Act while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Ground no 8-Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ITAs No.671 & 1634/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) 5 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... learned AO, based on the directions of learned DRP, has erred in initiating penalty proceedings against the Appellant under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had neither concealed any information nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income in its return of income

Sukhdev Raj, Sirsa vs. Income Tax Officer, Sirsa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 632/CHANDI/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(37)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 253Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

under Section 147 read with Section 144B at a total taxable income of Rs. 24,73,033/-, and simultaneously initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Vishal Osatwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1217/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Vishal Osatwal………………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ground Floor, 34/1U, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kol – 700019. [Pan: Aanpo2583R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-29(1), Kolkata………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (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 2014–15. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.17,62,746/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Filed Revised Computation Of Income Offering Additional Income Of Rs.74,62,846/- Being Ltcg Claimed As Exempt In The Original Return Of Income. The Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 20-10-2016 Determining The Assessee'S Total Income At Rs.92,97,450/- By Making Addition Of Rs.74,62,846/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Ltcg & Disallowance Of Legal Expenses Of Rs. 3,809/-. In Respect Of Both These Vishal Osatwal Additions, The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that 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 ... Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) held that 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

Vivek Kamalkar Kadam, Virar West vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6162/MUM/2025[ 2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2016-17 Vivek Kamalkar Kadam Income Tax Officer, Namasthetubunglow No. 2, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Road, Padmavati Nagar Phase 4, Near Vs. 16Z, Wagale Industrial Road, Mamta Super Market, Bolinj, Thane – 400604, Maharashtra. Virar West, Vasai – Virar, Maharashtra – 401305. [Pan: Adqpk2053E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Jitendra Singh For Revenue : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Delhi, Dated 30-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of 12,50,000/- U/S 69A Of The Act, Being Part Of Loan Repayment, Ignoring That The Appellant Had Discharged The Initial Burden By Providing Comprehensive Evidence Of The Source, Including Affidavit, Confirmation, Itr & Audited Accounts Of Shri Shaikh, Which Establish Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transaction.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

total assessed income was determined at Rs.25,02,690/- under section 143(3) of the Act, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated separately. 6.2 Aggrieved by the said assessment order dated 28.12.2018, the appellant. preferred the present appeal before this forum and contended that

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5790/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr.DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), wherein it held as follows: "66. Section 271(1) (c) remains a penal statute. Rule of strict construction shall apply thereto. Ingredients of imposing penalty remains the same. The purpose of the Legislature that ... action of non-striking off of the irrelevant clause in the notice shows that the charge being made against the assessee qua section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not firm and, therefore, the proceedings suffer from non-compliance with principles of natural justice inasmuch as he was himself

Unipatch Rubber Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4439/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Unipatch Rubber Limited, Dcit/Acit, Building No.10, Community Centre, Vs. Circle 25(1), Saket, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aaacu0325P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250oSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80ISection 94(7)

longer res integra for matters concerning the territory of Delhi. The head notes from the said case law deserves to be extracted: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 274, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of income (Scope of provision) – Assessment year 2012-13 – Whether where

Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium (by Deepali Designs Exhibits (P.) Ltd.), Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

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

ITA 518/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144CSection 153ASection 92C

TIME OF HEARING. 22. THAT THE AO HAS ERRED, IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN INITIATING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 23. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AND/OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium, Haryana vs. DCIT Central Circle 17, Delhi

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

ITA 412/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Section 144CSection 153ASection 92C

Income Tax Officer Ward 411 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Sharanam Reality Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1839/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 43C

dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. This appeal pertains to quashing of penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeal filed against the order u/s ITA Nos.1838 & 1839/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ITO vs. Sharanam Reality

Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Sharanam Reality Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1838/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 43C

Gopal Kundu Roy, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Siliguri

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

ITA 2263/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Gopal Kundu Roy,……………………………….…Appellant ‘Hare Krishna Bhawan’, P.O. Rabindra Sarani, Rathkhola Bazar, Siliguri-734006, West Bengal [Pan:Acgpr0359H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(3), Siliguri, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigara, Dist. Darjeeling-734010, W.B.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

plus Rs.13,18,901/- (stamp duty Rs.15,09,374/- minus Rs.1,90,473/- as cost of acquisition)] and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of concealed the particulars of income. 2 Gopal Kundu Roy 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal

Sathyanarayana Saka, Someswaram vs. ITO, NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 589/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 588 & 589/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 & 2015-16) Satyanarayana Saka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Someswaram. Kakinada. Pan: Hlbps2932A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 15/07/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 28/09/2022 For Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16. As The Common Issue Is Involved In The Captioned Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Satyanarayana Saka Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 15/07/2025 which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 28/09/2022 for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16. As the common ... dated 30/03/2023 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.26.45 lakhs. Also, the AO while culminating the assessment initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 28/09/2022 imposed a penalty

Sathyanarayana Saka, Someswaram vs. ITO, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 588/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Bhavna Shetalkumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1103/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

facts in not providing cross examination of persons whose statement has been relied on. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. 7. Charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C is unjustified. 11. The assessee also filed following additional grounds

Joseph Abraham Peter Joseph, Madurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Revenue Building, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.M. Muriga Boopathy, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 271(1)(c)

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 ... notice issued by the AO [u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act] had reflected both the two (2) limbs of Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act. However, we find the decision in Gangotri Textiles (supra) is distinguishable, since it was on the peculiar facts of that case

Neeta Agarwal, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, 2(1)(2), Agra

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

ITA 213/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

Bhagwat Prasad Malviya, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 456/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 548Section 54B

rightly disallowed. This ground is, therefore, dismissed. 9.16 Ground 4: That the AO was not justified in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 9.17 This ground is premature as the penalty order, if any, is a separate proceeding. The mere initiation of penalty under section 271(1

Pancharam Verma, Barabanki vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department/Income Tax Officer, Range-5(4), Barabanki

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 622/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

made addition of Rs.63,06,000/- under section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide penalty order dated 31/08/2023 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, penalty amounting to Rs.19,48,554/- was levied