BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

39 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 139(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi305Mumbai257Jaipur195Chennai129Bangalore120Indore108Hyderabad106Ahmedabad105Pune67Surat52Chandigarh47Raipur46Amritsar39Rajkot36Kolkata31Allahabad27Patna23Lucknow23Cochin21Nagpur21Visakhapatnam19Guwahati17Cuttack11Dehradun10Panaji10Ranchi6Jodhpur5Agra3Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 153C60Section 14758Section 153A39Section 271(1)(c)38Section 14837Addition to Income32Section 250(6)20Section 69A20Section 80I

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 31/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

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

139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person or assessee for any failure referred to in section 271F if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

20
Penalty17
Deduction15
Disallowance15

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

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

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

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

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

139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person or assessee for any failure referred to in section 271F if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

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

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

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

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

139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person or assessee for any failure referred to in section 271F if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

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

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

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

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

139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person or assessee for any failure referred to in section 271F if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 58/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 55/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 56/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 57/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 59/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 60/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 61/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 62/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 63/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 64/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

ITA 16/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

5. That subsequent to the order passed u/s 153C, the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c)/ 270A were issued and the appellant submitted the reply that the penalty initiated u/s 271(l)(c)/270A is bad in law as the assessment order passed u/s 153C is without jurisdiction. The said objection was raised in the pursuit of the fact

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

ITA 21/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

5. That subsequent to the order passed u/s 153C, the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c)/ 270A were issued and the appellant submitted the reply that the penalty initiated u/s 271(l)(c)/270A is bad in law as the assessment order passed u/s 153C is without jurisdiction. The said objection was raised in the pursuit of the fact

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

ITA 20/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

5. That subsequent to the order passed u/s 153C, the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c)/ 270A were issued and the appellant submitted the reply that the penalty initiated u/s 271(l)(c)/270A is bad in law as the assessment order passed u/s 153C is without jurisdiction. The said objection was raised in the pursuit of the fact

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

ITA 19/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

5. That subsequent to the order passed u/s 153C, the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c)/ 270A were issued and the appellant submitted the reply that the penalty initiated u/s 271(l)(c)/270A is bad in law as the assessment order passed u/s 153C is without jurisdiction. The said objection was raised in the pursuit of the fact

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

ITA 18/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

5. That subsequent to the order passed u/s 153C, the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c)/ 270A were issued and the appellant submitted the reply that the penalty initiated u/s 271(l)(c)/270A is bad in law as the assessment order passed u/s 153C is without jurisdiction. The said objection was raised in the pursuit of the fact

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

ITA 17/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

5. That subsequent to the order passed u/s 153C, the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c)/ 270A were issued and the appellant submitted the reply that the penalty initiated u/s 271(l)(c)/270A is bad in law as the assessment order passed u/s 153C is without jurisdiction. The said objection was raised in the pursuit of the fact