BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi862Mumbai745Jaipur401Chennai269Bangalore236Ahmedabad235Indore198Kolkata177Pune143Hyderabad137Karnataka133Surat100Chandigarh94Amritsar64Raipur51Rajkot47Cuttack45Visakhapatnam38Lucknow36Calcutta35Cochin34Nagpur32Allahabad32Patna24Guwahati23Panaji15Dehradun10Ranchi9Jabalpur7Jodhpur6Agra4SC3Rajasthan1Gauhati1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)105Section 14841Section 139(1)36Section 153A35Penalty33Section 80P22Addition to Income18Section 143(3)15Section 44A

ABDULLA KATTIL KOTTUR,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 843/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18 Abdulla Kattil Kottur Mp3/562 Selected Plaza Near Panchayath Mannarkad Ito Vs. Palakkad District Ward-1 & Tps Kerala 678 582 Palakkad Pan No :Azrpa9183C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 26.7.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067077218(1) For The Ay 2017- 18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad Page 2 Of 10 Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad Page 3 Of 10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80D

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

14
Section 271B13
Deduction8
Condonation of Delay6

139. 271B. [ Failure to get accounts audited. [Inserted by Act 21 of 1984, Section 30 (w.e.f. 1.4.1985).] - If any person fails ][* * *] [ Omitted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 21 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).] to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year or years relevant to an assessment year or [furnish a report of such audit as required under section

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI. SINKARAM M. CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 370/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) at length and decided that where income has been voluntarily declared in the Return of Income filed u/s. 153A penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similar decision was given in the case of Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata also. The courts have decided that the concealment is to be decided after the Return of Income filed

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.SINKARAM M.CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 369/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) at length and decided that where income has been voluntarily declared in the Return of Income filed u/s. 153A penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similar decision was given in the case of Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata also. The courts have decided that the concealment is to be decided after the Return of Income filed

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI. SINKARAM M. CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 373/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) at length and decided that where income has been voluntarily declared in the Return of Income filed u/s. 153A penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similar decision was given in the case of Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata also. The courts have decided that the concealment is to be decided after the Return of Income filed

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.SINKARAM M.CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 368/COCH/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) at length and decided that where income has been voluntarily declared in the Return of Income filed u/s. 153A penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similar decision was given in the case of Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata also. The courts have decided that the concealment is to be decided after the Return of Income filed

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI. SINKARAM M. CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 371/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) at length and decided that where income has been voluntarily declared in the Return of Income filed u/s. 153A penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similar decision was given in the case of Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata also. The courts have decided that the concealment is to be decided after the Return of Income filed

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI. SINKARAM M. CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 372/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) at length and decided that where income has been voluntarily declared in the Return of Income filed u/s. 153A penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similar decision was given in the case of Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata also. The courts have decided that the concealment is to be decided after the Return of Income filed

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

5. In case of present assessee, the initiation of penalty u/s 270A was under a wrong section. The order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence the order of the AO is set aside to the extent of non-initiation of penalty proceedings under the correct section. The AO is directed to pass fresh

MS.KALLIYATH CYRIL RAJU,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 54/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

139 of the Act, The assessee has hitherto not filed the return of income and the return filed in response to the notice under section 153A would become the first [return. This is as per the provisions of section 153A itself. Once this is a situation, then no penalty can be levied in respect of the returned income which

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. SRI.AMBADY KRISHNA MENON, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed

ITA 4/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

139 ITR 274 (All.) f) Kakarla Krishnamurthy vs. CIT (1981) 216 ITR 206 (AP) g) Mahalakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1981) 129 ITR 53 (Karn.) Prayer The Respondent humbly prays the order issued by the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals- I) deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) may be upheld and assessee may be allowed to live peacefully

SRI.M.R.SOMARAJAN,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/COCH/2019[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 271(1)(c)

139(1) or by such notice. “Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/142(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. “Have concealed the particulars of your income of ………………….or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income” 2. You are hereby

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 96/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

271(1)(c). The assessee was under a statutory obligation to file the return of income within the time limit provided under section 139(1) providing therein the correct particulars of its income. It has failed to include in the return so filed the correct particulars of its income. It is relevant in this context to mention that an assessee

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 95/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

271(1)(c). The assessee was under a statutory obligation to file the return of income within the time limit provided under section 139(1) providing therein the correct particulars of its income. It has failed to include in the return so filed the correct particulars of its income. It is relevant in this context to mention that an assessee

M/S.JEENA HOTEL & UDAYA BAR,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 271BSection 44A

139(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. However, this is subject to the provisions of section 273B of Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 273B reads as under: "Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases” 273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

139(1). As per Form No. 16 issued subsequently by M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, TDS has been remitted on 06-05-2010 to the Government Account as per challan no. 05194. During the course of hearing the assessee admitted the omission to offer the perquisite value of ESOP to tax. The accordingly concluded the u/s 143(3) assessing the total

VALSAN CHIYYABATH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 28/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

139(1) could not be filed due to personal problems and there was no deliberate concealment of income, therefore, no penalty should be levied. Considering the above explanation, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 80/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

139(1) could not be filed due to personal problems and there was no deliberate concealment of income, therefore, no penalty should be levied. Considering the above explanation, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

139(1) could not be filed due to personal problems and there was no deliberate concealment of income, therefore, no penalty should be levied. Considering the above explanation, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 82/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

139(1) could not be filed due to personal problems and there was no deliberate concealment of income, therefore, no penalty should be levied. Considering the above explanation, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 561/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

penalty show cause notice dated 04.06.2024 issued u/s. 271(1)(c), the appellant came to know about the Order u/s 250. Immediately, on 05.06.2025, meeting of the Board of Directors of the Society was convened and decided to file the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench against the Order of the CIT(A). Within 60 days from