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”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi742Mumbai560Ahmedabad303Jaipur244Indore199Bangalore172Chennai167Pune132Kolkata130Hyderabad129Raipur101Rajkot96Chandigarh82Surat73Amritsar63Allahabad51Lucknow50Patna47Visakhapatnam43Ranchi41Guwahati40Nagpur32Agra28Cuttack25Cochin21Dehradun18Jodhpur15Jabalpur9Panaji3Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)38Penalty21Natural Justice15Addition to Income11Section 270A10Section 271D10Section 2508Section 282(1)8Exemption7Section 271(1)

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 2745
Section 80H5
Section 37

natural justice and cannot be sustained. Thus once the proceedings are initiated on one ground, the penalty should also be imposed on the same ground. Where the basis of the initiation of penalty proceedings is not identical with the ground on which the penalty was imposed, the imposition of penalty is not valid. The validity of the order of penalty

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

penalty proceedings stand initiated. The requirement of law is accordingly met on the provision of opportunity, through a notice u/s. 274, to the assessee to meet the Revenue’s case as made out in the assessment order, observing, thus, the mandate of law as well as the principle of natural justice. This is purport of notice u/s. 274 – nothing more

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 54/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

justice the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY P.O vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 165/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

justice the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. RAJAKUMARI SHOPPING AMALL LLP, ATTINGAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 597/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavan, Kawdiar, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Rajkumari Shopping Mall Llp ......... Respondent Amc 11/556, City Plaza, Nh Road Attingal 695101 [Pan: Aaqfr1222B] Assessee By: Shri V.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has not specifically mentioned whether the penalty is proposed in respect of concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant contended that in the absence of specific and particular mentioning of the reason for the penalty, the penalty notice itself is invalid and as a result the imposition

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 722/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 724/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 725/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 723/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

KALATHINGAL FAIZAL RAHMAN,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1013/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in the quantum assessments, the Tribunal had restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Hence it was prayed that in the interest of natural justice

HASNA MUHAMMED SHERIF,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1015/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in the quantum assessments, the Tribunal had restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Hence it was prayed that in the interest of natural justice

ARIFA EDATHIL,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1017/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in the quantum assessments, the Tribunal had restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Hence it was prayed that in the interest of natural justice

ARIFA EDATHIL ,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1016/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in the quantum assessments, the Tribunal had restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Hence it was prayed that in the interest of natural justice

HASNA MUHAMMED SHERIF,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1014/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in the quantum assessments, the Tribunal had restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Hence it was prayed that in the interest of natural justice

JINS DOMINIC,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since facts and issues are similar in both years and both years are emanating from the orders of the same ld. CIT(A), these are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, it is observed that

JINS DOMINIC,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 65/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since facts and issues are similar in both years and both years are emanating from the orders of the same ld. CIT(A), these are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, it is observed that

JINS DOMINIC,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since facts and issues are similar in both years and both years are emanating from the orders of the same ld. CIT(A), these are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, it is observed that

JINS DOMINIC,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 67/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since facts and issues are similar in both years and both years are emanating from the orders of the same ld. CIT(A), these are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, it is observed that

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred

RAJASREE MOTORS PVT LTD,COCHIN vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1004/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the relevant year, that the assessee became aware of the passing of the appellate order on 14.12.2022. The assessee’s account at the Income Tax Portal was accordingly immediately accessed and the impugned order downloaded, filing an appeal with dispatch on 20.12.2022. This explains the delay in filing the delay by 11 ½ months