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.

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 151clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai275Delhi203Jaipur95Pune61Raipur47Ahmedabad47Hyderabad45Bangalore45Rajkot41Chennai40Chandigarh38Amritsar33Kolkata23Lucknow23Allahabad22Nagpur19Indore18Agra9Surat8Cuttack8Dehradun7Guwahati5Visakhapatnam3Cochin2Patna2Ranchi2Varanasi2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 270A3Section 271(1)(c)3Section 143(3)2Section 42Penalty2Addition to Income2

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 143
Section 143(3)
Section 148
Section 270A
Section 274
Section 37(1)

271(1)(c) of the Act, is thus presumed (Cement Marketing Company of India vs. Asst. CST [1980] 124 ITR 15 (SC)). Saving is, further, provided for a bona fide explanation which is substantiated by disclosure of material facts or difference of estimate based duly disclosed material (s. 270A(6)). Further still, an immunity from penalty is provided u/s. 270AA

SRI VIJAYA KUMAR JANARDHANAN NAIR,KOLLAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE, KOLLAM

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

ITA 915/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 915/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vijaya Kumar Janardhanan बनाम/ Acit, Kollam Nair Kerala. Vs. X-15-1299, Sree Janardhana Complex, Residency Road, Kollam-691001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acrpn5993Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, (Ca) Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 12.08.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee For Ay 2016-17 Had Filed His Return Of Income Reflecting An Income Of Rs.83,97,670/- Which Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act’) & Assessment Order Was Passed On 10.12.2018 By Making An Addition Of Rs.51,52,151/- U/S 68 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & After Hearing The Assessee, The Penalty Of Rs.17,01,706/- Was Levied By Order Dated 27.06.2019. Penalty Levied By Ao Was Assailed Before The Ld. Cit(A) On 20.07.2019 & While The Appeal Was Adjudicated Before The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Offered For Settlement Of Dispute Under The Direct Taxes Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2020 On 20.02.2021. & The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, (CA)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 68

151/- u/s 68 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and after hearing the assessee, the penalty of Rs.17,01,706/- was levied by order dated 27.06.2019. Penalty levied by AO was assailed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 20.07.2019 and while the appeal was adjudicated before