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.

21 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi526Mumbai443Jaipur185Ahmedabad157Raipur118Hyderabad105Chennai96Bangalore93Indore87Pune73Rajkot55Kolkata54Chandigarh50Surat42Allahabad31Nagpur25Amritsar21Visakhapatnam17Lucknow17Guwahati14Ranchi14Patna11Dehradun9Agra4Cuttack4Jodhpur3Varanasi3Panaji3Jabalpur2Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 14835Section 1020Section 143(3)17Section 271(1)(c)17Addition to Income17Section 14714Section 6914Section 25013Penalty9Deduction

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

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

ITA 11/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 144aSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

section 69 of the Act are entirely inapplicable.” 6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 7 7. In this ground no. 7, the ld. AR for the assessee specifically mentioned that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account. The addition was made on basis of the bank statement

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

6
Condonation of Delay6
Section 1515

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

ITA 310/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 144aSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

section 69 of the Act are entirely inapplicable.” 6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 7 7. In this ground no. 7, the ld. AR for the assessee specifically mentioned that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account. The addition was made on basis of the bank statement

MEASEG. SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS ,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 304/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was estimated by the AO as alleged initial investment trading in paddy, rice and their bye-products without rebutting the contentions of the assessee raised during the course of assessment as well

M/S SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS ,JALALABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 214/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was estimated by the AO as alleged initial investment trading in paddy, rice and their bye-products without rebutting the contentions of the assessee raised during the course of assessment as well

MEASAGE. SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 303/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was estimated by the AO as alleged initial investment trading in paddy, rice and their bye-products without rebutting the contentions of the assessee raised during the course of assessment as well

M/S ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), SRINAGAR

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

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c) before the ITAT. The ld, CIT(A) first served the order related to penalty. The assessee was waiting for quantum appeal as per advice of consultant. The wrong advice of the consultant may cause the delay for filing the appeal. The Revenue has not made any objection related to condonation of delay for 149 days. Accordingly

MESERS ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD 3 (1), SRINAGAR

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

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c) before the ITAT. The ld, CIT(A) first served the order related to penalty. The assessee was waiting for quantum appeal as per advice of consultant. The wrong advice of the consultant may cause the delay for filing the appeal. The Revenue has not made any objection related to condonation of delay for 149 days. Accordingly

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 133/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 133/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

69 and 69A of the I.T.Act respectively. [ Addition : Rs.37,46,491/-]” 5.1 The ld. AR vehemently argued and placed that the ld. AO without considering our submission and without allowing the reasonable opportunity the addition was made during the impugned assessment year. He further draws our attention in para 5 of the assessment order which is extracted as below

MILLENNIUM REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 653/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 14Section 14ASection 56Section 69Section 69ASection 71

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAA of the Act. 4. In appeal, CIT appeal has confirmed the addition by observing as under: 3.1 Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 & 2 pertain to assessment of surrendered income of Rs. 1.16 Crores as assessable u/s 69A and not allowing the set-off of the business loss from this income. The AO has mentioned that

SHRIMATI BANEET KAUR BHASIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

ITA 251/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. When the appeals are called for a hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment petition was filed on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of record we find that the date was fixed several times but none was present to represent the appeal. Considering the issue, we proceed

SMT. BANEET KAUR BHASIN,,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

ITA 246/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. When the appeals are called for a hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment petition was filed on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of record we find that the date was fixed several times but none was present to represent the appeal. Considering the issue, we proceed

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR vs. SMT. BANEET KAUR BHASIN,, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

ITA 263/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. When the appeals are called for a hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment petition was filed on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of record we find that the date was fixed several times but none was present to represent the appeal. Considering the issue, we proceed

MESERS ARYA MODEL SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 553/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 60/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 13/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income

MESERS ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 552/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 292/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

69,57,561/- is held to be unexplained credit in the books of accounts of the assesses and its deemed income u/s 68 of the I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 15 And C.O. Nos. 01 & 02/Asr/2025 Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income are simultaneously initiated.” 8. The matter was carried in appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 293/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

69,57,561/- is held to be unexplained credit in the books of accounts of the assesses and its deemed income u/s 68 of the I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 15 And C.O. Nos. 01 & 02/Asr/2025 Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income are simultaneously initiated.” 8. The matter was carried in appeal

SAINIK COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,SAINIK COLONY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD-1, JAMMU

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

ITA 406/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 24Section 250Section 69

69 without appreciating the fact that the investments in FDR to the tune of Rs. 8202048 and Rs. 546379 were out of maturity proceeds of earlier years FDR's 7. That the assessee craves leave to add, amend and withdraw any of the grounds of appeal.” 3 I.T.A. Nos. 701 & 406/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 3. Brief facts emerging from

SAINIK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

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

ITA 701/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 24Section 250Section 69

69 without appreciating the fact that the investments in FDR to the tune of Rs. 8202048 and Rs. 546379 were out of maturity proceeds of earlier years FDR's 7. That the assessee craves leave to add, amend and withdraw any of the grounds of appeal.” 3 I.T.A. Nos. 701 & 406/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 3. Brief facts emerging from