CHUNDAYIL KALAM GIRIJADEVI ,KERALASSERY vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

32 taxmann.com 372 (Mumbai-Trib). In CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that so long as the assessee has not concealed any material fact or the factual information given by him has not been found to be incorrect, he will not be liable to imposition of penalty under

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

32,110/-. 3. The appellant, in response to the show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, could not file original return of income as he was under treatment for psychological issues. However, the AO rejected the above explanation and proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 9,96,672/- vide order dated 27.09.2021. 4. Being aggrieved