← 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)

Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar Kalyan Board, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ranchi

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 321/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Before Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 272A(1)(d)

325/Ran/2024 for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively. 12. In both these appeals, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.₹ 20,000/- and ₹ 40,000/- respectively and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty imposed ... involved in the quantum appeals. Since the matter is already restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act in both these appeals are deleted. 13. In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order announced

Promilla Mathur, Delhi vs. AO, Civic Centre, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3852/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Promilla Mathur, Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac D-55, Gulmohar Park, Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Afkpm7548E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Alok Mital, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.04.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Ground:- 1. The Order Passed By The Ai/Cit(A) Is Bad In Law, Wrong On Facts & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ao/Cit(A) Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Assessing / Upholding The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 14,25,293/- As Unexplained Despite Producing Documents On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Mital, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

view of the facts and circumstance of the case, the AO has erred, both on facts and in law, in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file

Anil Kapilashrami, Gurgaon vs. Dict Circle-16, New Delhi

ITA 34/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 271(1)(c)

parties at length. Case files perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have invoked section 271(1)(c) penalty provision in holding the assessee to have concealed and furnished inaccurate particulars of income; going by the corresponding incriminating material found/seized

Anil Kaspilashrami, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

ITA 33/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 271(1)(c)

parties at length. Case files perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have invoked section 271(1)(c) penalty provision in holding the assessee to have concealed and furnished inaccurate particulars of income; going by the corresponding incriminating material found/seized

Malti Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 891/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmalti Agarwal, B 13B Girdhar Colony, Murlipura Thana Road, Jaipur 302 039 Pan No.: Aampa 1590K ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 4(3), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Dheeraj Borad, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Jcit Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Mr. Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 154Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

That on the facts and in law, the sustenance by the Ld. CIT (A) of penalty of Rs. 1,82,310/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by the AO is most arbitrary, unjust, and untenable in law and in the alternative it is excessive ... total income from long term capital gain, and taking this amount as unexplained income he levied penalty of Rs. 1,82,310/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee and in first appeal the Id. CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty. 3 Malti Agarwal

Jyoti Sharma, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Panchkula

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

ITA 192/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 245Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

failed to appreciate the fact that the similar delay had happened while filing the appeal against the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(d) of the Act and in those matters, similar reasons were submitted seeking condonation of delay and the reasons were found reasonable ... same was dismissed. 5. I also refer to the order under section 250 passed in the context of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is available as part of the assessee’s paper book at page 44 to 47 wherein I find that

Narendrakumar Lalchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4226/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranarendrakumar Lalchand Jain Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(4), C/O G.P. Mehta & Co, Cas Mumbai. Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 021 Pan: Acwpj4288P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Ar
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 275Section 275(1)(c)Section 68

order 08/05/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (for brevity, ‘Ld. AO’) passed under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, date of order 01/03/2022. 2 ITA 4226/Mum /2025 Narendrakumar Lalchand Jain 2. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents ... addition of Rs.2,37,700/- was made on account of unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Act were initiated and notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(b) was also issued on 18/12/2019 for noncompliance

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 886/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

adjudicating/rejecting Ground No.2 raised before him which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity :- “2. That the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the learned Assessing Officer is void, in as much as, from the notice issued under section 274 read ... with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 it is not discernible, as to whether the penalty levied is for furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, which renders the entire proceedings bad in law.” 7. Ld. AR of the assessee brought

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 885/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

adjudicating/rejecting Ground No.2 raised before him which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity :- “2. That the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the learned Assessing Officer is void, in as much as, from the notice issued under section 274 read ... with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 it is not discernible, as to whether the penalty levied is for furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, which renders the entire proceedings bad in law.” 7. Ld. AR of the assessee brought

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 884/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

adjudicating/rejecting Ground No.2 raised before him which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity :- “2. That the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the learned Assessing Officer is void, in as much as, from the notice issued under section 274 read ... with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 it is not discernible, as to whether the penalty levied is for furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, which renders the entire proceedings bad in law.” 7. Ld. AR of the assessee brought

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 6053/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

adjudicating/rejecting Ground No.2 raised before him which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity :- “2. That the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the learned Assessing Officer is void, in as much as, from the notice issued under section 274 read ... with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 it is not discernible, as to whether the penalty levied is for furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, which renders the entire proceedings bad in law.” 7. Ld. AR of the assessee brought

Suresh Nag Yadav, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 1, Ranchi

In the result, ITA No. 08/RAN/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.08 To 12/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2016-17 Suresh Nag Yadav……………......................…...........................……….……Appellant Yadav Bhawan, Karatoli, Jharkhand - 834008. [Pan: Aafpy5311D] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. K. Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 28.11.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures & Assessment Years, All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We Proceed To Deal With Ita No. 08/Ran/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 & Our Findings Therein Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.37,56,390. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 29.11.2018 At The Business & Residential Premises Of The Assessee. In Consequence Thereof, A Notice Under Section 153A Of The Act Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.05.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,56,390/-, Including Additional Income Of Rs.1,00,000 Disclosed

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

determining the total income at Rs.38,56,390. Penalty proceedings were initiated, and the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.30,900 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 3. The assessee challenged the imposition of penalty before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the order

Suresh Nag Yadav, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, ITA No. 08/RAN/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 12/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.08 To 12/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2016-17 Suresh Nag Yadav……………......................…...........................……….……Appellant Yadav Bhawan, Karatoli, Jharkhand - 834008. [Pan: Aafpy5311D] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. K. Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 28.11.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures & Assessment Years, All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We Proceed To Deal With Ita No. 08/Ran/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 & Our Findings Therein Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.37,56,390. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 29.11.2018 At The Business & Residential Premises Of The Assessee. In Consequence Thereof, A Notice Under Section 153A Of The Act Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.05.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,56,390/-, Including Additional Income Of Rs.1,00,000 Disclosed

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

determining the total income at Rs.38,56,390. Penalty proceedings were initiated, and the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.30,900 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 3. The assessee challenged the imposition of penalty before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the order

Shri Yash Paul Malhotra, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

income offered in course of assessment and initiated penalty. The Hon’ble Apex court in the said case, has observed that explanation to section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment, when difference is noted by the AO between reported and assessed income” The ld. AR further explained that

Khodiyar Organisers, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Khodiyar Organisers, Vs. Acit, Central Plaza, Near Om Terrace, Circle – 2(3), New City Light Road, Surat – Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfk1498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

when there is no difference in the return of income and assessed income. On careful perusal of Explanation - 1 to Section 271(1), it may be seen that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purpose of levy ... penalty within the meaning of Explanation – 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In other words, if no addition or disallowance is made in computing the total income, then there will not be any income, which can be deemed as income in respect of which particulars have been

Pooran Singh, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 196/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount of Rs. 58,525/- as per provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from these different order for levy of penalty the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos ... present case. Thus the Learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law & facts in Imposing the Penalty of Rs. 58,525.00 under section 271(1)(C ) of the Act. Relief claimed in appeal. The Appeal of the Appellant may please be accepted. Penalty Order Dated 26- 06-2018 and Order

Pooran Singh, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 195/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount of Rs. 58,525/- as per provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from these different order for levy of penalty the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos ... present case. Thus the Learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law & facts in Imposing the Penalty of Rs. 58,525.00 under section 271(1)(C ) of the Act. Relief claimed in appeal. The Appeal of the Appellant may please be accepted. Penalty Order Dated 26- 06-2018 and Order

Pooran Singh, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 194/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount of Rs. 58,525/- as per provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from these different order for levy of penalty the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos ... present case. Thus the Learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law & facts in Imposing the Penalty of Rs. 58,525.00 under section 271(1)(C ) of the Act. Relief claimed in appeal. The Appeal of the Appellant may please be accepted. Penalty Order Dated 26- 06-2018 and Order

Lakhubhai Nathubhai Sisodiya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(3), Ahmedabad, Current ITO Ward 3(1)(2)

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

ITA 716/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by confirming the penalty of Rs.1,98,428/-, under section 271(1)(c) of the act, on account of concealment of income, and therefore the learned AO should be directed to delete the said penalty ... said amount was treated as unexplained under section 69 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were accordingly initiated for concealment of income. During penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted that the addition was agreed to in order

Arifkhan Munirkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1142/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

appeal was dismissed. The assessee only came to know about the dismissal of the appeal when he received a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) dated 31.03.2025. On learning this, the assessee immediately approached another professional, and it was only then that he became aware of the appellate order