← 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)

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5674/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: None
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

which two views are possible. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is not a case for penalty under section 271(1)(c). When the issue is debatable and two views are possible, then on such issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied by charging ... Builders & Developers 368 ITR 722 (Bom) who held that where the quantum appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similarly, before the coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT LTU v. Reliance Industries

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5673/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: None
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

which two views are possible. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is not a case for penalty under section 271(1)(c). When the issue is debatable and two views are possible, then on such issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied by charging ... Builders & Developers 368 ITR 722 (Bom) who held that where the quantum appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similarly, before the coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT LTU v. Reliance Industries

Venket Raman Narlwar, Throughout L/H Dr. Pratima Raman, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer -2, Katni

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/JAB/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshradr. Pratima Raman (L/H Of V. Income Tax Officer-2 Venket Raman Narlwar Aayakar Bhawan, Sahkarita Maryadit) Jhinjhari, Katni-483501. Venket Building Lalita Bhawan, Sawarkar Ward, Katni-483501. Pan:Abhpn5492K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 12.02.2025 Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi, dated 12.02.2025 which in turn arose from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) for the assessment year 2011-12. The grounds of appeal of the assessee ... circumstances of the case ld CIT(A) erred is not providing adequate opportunity in the assessee & passing ex-parte order confirming penalty under section 271(1)(b). 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty under section 271(1)(b) without opportunity

Dinesh Jat, Sagar vs. CIT(A), NFAC

ITA 196/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

appeals of the assessee against the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 on 17.09.2021 and the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) on 9.02.2022, both for the assessment year 2013-14. As both the orders emanate out of common issues, they are being taken up together ... facts. 2. Penalty Confirmed Without Establishing Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) without demonstrating that the appellant had either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The appellant had no willful intent or knowledge

Dinesh Jat, Sagar vs. CIT (A), Sagar

ITA 195/JAB/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

appeals of the assessee against the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 on 17.09.2021 and the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) on 9.02.2022, both for the assessment year 2013-14. As both the orders emanate out of common issues, they are being taken up together ... facts. 2. Penalty Confirmed Without Establishing Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) without demonstrating that the appellant had either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The appellant had no willful intent or knowledge

Atul Singh Parihar, Satna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Katni

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

ITA 102/JAB/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Atul Singh Parihar V. Acit, Circle-Katni Beside Of Mpseb Office Nh-7, Mp Sh 10, Bharahut Nagar, Satna- Chanehata, Katni- 485001. 483442. Tan/Pan:Ahapp2293B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

misapprehension of facts and without proper verification. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not addressing the Appellant's contention regarding the charging of interest under Sections

Ganpat Singh Patel, Balaghat vs. ITO Ward, Balaghat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 53/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Ganpat Singh Patel V. Ito Ward, Balaghat Prem Nagar, Balaghat H.O. Railway Station Road, Balaghat, Balaghat, 481001, Balaghat-481001. Madhya Pradesh. Pan:Aeopp9849L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

circumstances of the case the learning C.I.T. has erred in not giving the opportunity of being heard to appellant. 5. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) should be deleted as there was no deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and any discrepancies were inadvertent or based on bona

Shri Chhatrapati Ssk Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 2689/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115WSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

this case, the facts are that assessee has not complied notices u/s.142(1) and 144 of the Act issued by ld. AO. Section 271(1)(b) of the Act is reproduced hereunder : “(b) has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/HYD/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

facts in confirming the penalty under Section 271D without considering that the learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) has also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income on the same amount, thereby subjecting the appellant to double jeopardy, which is contrary to settled ... kindly: a. Delete the penalty of ₹43,69,500/- levied under Section 271D of the Act. b. Quash the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. c. Hold that the transactions recorded in the memorandum books, being derived from the seized and impounded materials, constitute admissible

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

facts in confirming the penalty under Section 271D without considering that the learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) has also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income on the same amount, thereby subjecting the appellant to double jeopardy, which is contrary to settled ... kindly: a. Delete the penalty of ₹43,69,500/- levied under Section 271D of the Act. b. Quash the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. c. Hold that the transactions recorded in the memorandum books, being derived from the seized and impounded materials, constitute admissible

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 576/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

facts in confirming the penalty under Section 271D without considering that the learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) has also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income on the same amount, thereby subjecting the appellant to double jeopardy, which is contrary to settled ... kindly: a. Delete the penalty of ₹43,69,500/- levied under Section 271D of the Act. b. Quash the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. c. Hold that the transactions recorded in the memorandum books, being derived from the seized and impounded materials, constitute admissible

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

facts in confirming the penalty under Section 271D without considering that the learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) has also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income on the same amount, thereby subjecting the appellant to double jeopardy, which is contrary to settled ... kindly: a. Delete the penalty of ₹43,69,500/- levied under Section 271D of the Act. b. Quash the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. c. Hold that the transactions recorded in the memorandum books, being derived from the seized and impounded materials, constitute admissible

C S M Enterprises, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ncw19(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 766/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.766/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2014-15 C S M Enterprises No.3033/B, V Cross St, Ramnagar South, Madipakkam, Chennai-600 091, [Pan: Aaee C8641D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By\सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 19(4), Chennai-34. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Mr. R. Ganesan, Ca Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit 02.07.2025 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)/Nfac, Delhi ['Cit(A)'] In Short] Dated 17.01.2025 For Assessment Year 2014-15 Conforming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under:

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायापीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मन कुमार गिरि

Arusuvai Food Processors Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(c)Section 271Section 41(1)

though passed in the context of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. But the requirement of law as given in section 271(1) & 270A(1) of the Act is noted to be pari-materia. As far as Section 271(1) is concerned, the AO to record ‘satisfaction

Ranjit Pathak, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4102/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)'] for assessment year 2016- 17, in relation to penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) and section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') respectively. As both the appeals being connected with the single assessee, same were ... under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act and made an addition of Rs.55,97,095/- and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The ld AO also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)b) of the Act for non-compliance

Ranjit Pathak, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4101/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)'] for assessment year 2016- 17, in relation to penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) and section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') respectively. As both the appeals being connected with the single assessee, same were ... under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act and made an addition of Rs.55,97,095/- and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The ld AO also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)b) of the Act for non-compliance

Kusum, Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty levied by the

ITA 6159/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 69C

following grounds in appeal as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) is illegal in the wake of non service of the notices. 2. The facts and circumstances of the case ... levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) is without due application of mind purely on the conjecture and surmises of the AO. 3. The facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of Ld. AO is bad in law and liable to be quashed

Radha Chandrababu Panikar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

ITA 959/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Radha Chandrababu Income Tax Officer Panikar Ward-3(2)(9), Vs. 28, Ramnagar, Nr. Ambica Ahmedabad Tube Colony, Station Road, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382445 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apupp1233M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr 19/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Pertain To The Same Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12; While One Is Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(In Short “Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.03.2025 In Quantum Proceedings In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), The Other Appeal Lies Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Quantum Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. ITA Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 [Radha Chandrababu

Radha Chandrababu Panikar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

ITA 958/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Radha Chandrababu Income Tax Officer Panikar Ward-3(2)(9), Vs. 28, Ramnagar, Nr. Ambica Ahmedabad Tube Colony, Station Road, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382445 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apupp1233M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr 19/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Pertain To The Same Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12; While One Is Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(In Short “Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.03.2025 In Quantum Proceedings In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), The Other Appeal Lies Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Quantum Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. ITA Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 [Radha Chandrababu

DCIT, CC-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Goldmine Commodities Private Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1260/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1260/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Goldmine House, V/S. Central Circle-1(4), 4, Niranjan-Nirakar Society, Ahmedabad. Near Shreyas Railway Crossing, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccg1295L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Kishor Goyal, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Dcit Vs. Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee did not file any reply, therefore, the AO proceeded to add Rs. 6,58,62,000/- and also initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274. The assessed income was computed at Rs. 9,85,22,820/-. 9. The assessee preferred an appeal before