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.

83 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 217(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai91Delhi83Bangalore27Hyderabad25Raipur23Jaipur21Chennai14Pune8Cuttack7Surat6Rajkot4Dehradun3Panaji3Patna3Ahmedabad2Indore2Allahabad2Kolkata1

Key Topics

Addition to Income48Section 143(3)45Section 271(1)(c)38Section 153A38Section 37(1)36Section 13230Section 69A28Section 133(6)23Disallowance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. NG TECHNOLOGIES LTD

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/82/2012HC Delhi01 Dec 2014
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1 )(c). 8. The Tribunal, after referring to judgment in Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC), has relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). 9. Section 271(1)(c) and Explanation 1 thereto read as under:- “271. (1

YUVRAJ AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9233/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9233/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yubraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Acit C-177, Fateh Nagar, Vs. Circle 27(2) Jail Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccn5302P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Showing 1–20 of 83 · Page 1 of 5

19
Deduction17
Penalty17
Search & Seizure16
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

217 has held that the 'mens rea' need not be established before imposition of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. "The explanation appended to section

VIVAAN INFOTEL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 26(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5549/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 217(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

217(1)(c) of the Act for fling inaccurate particulars of income and imposed penalty of Rs. 6,67,421/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded vide order dated 21.06.2018 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee did not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed its appeal by observing and recording

ARTMICA LAMINATES P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned penalty order is set aside

ITA 6615/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaartmica Laminates Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. M.K. Bhatt & Co, 302, Ward-3(2), Triveni Complex, E-10-12, New Delhi Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aqcpk7351E

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

217/- while deleting Rs. 1,53,53,783/-. Thereafter, vide penalty order dated 28.02.2018, the ld AO had imposed penalty of Rs. 14,35,681/-@100% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same was sustained by the ld CIT(A) by impugned order dated 11.09.2018. 3. The Assessee

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

penalty proceedings, if any, to the 15 assessee, alongwith the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or refund of any amount due to, the assessee on the basis of such assessment;” 30. On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that section 144B clearly mandates that notwithstanding the provisions of section 143, NFAC shall pass the final

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3038/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

u/s 273 or 271(1)(c) of the Act. While holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “Turning now to the case of penalty which is covered by the second question, the Tribunal held that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. On this part of the case, the decision of this court in Addl

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

u/s 273 or 271(1)(c) of the Act. While holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “Turning now to the case of penalty which is covered by the second question, the Tribunal held that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. On this part of the case, the decision of this court in Addl

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3037/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

u/s 273 or 271(1)(c) of the Act. While holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “Turning now to the case of penalty which is covered by the second question, the Tribunal held that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. On this part of the case, the decision of this court in Addl

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NTPC LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3194/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty on account of the addition made by the AO of the amortization of premium paid

M/S. NTPC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3535/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty on account of the addition made by the AO of the amortization of premium paid

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NTPC LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3590/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty on account of the addition made by the AO of the amortization of premium paid

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

271/- being foreign exchange loss incurred by the assessee on payment of foreign exchange to BHEL as per contract for acquisition of capital asset from abroad treating the same as capital expenditure ignoring the provisions of section 37 as well as section 43AA of the Income Tax Act r/w ICDs-VI issued u/s 145(2) of the Act. 08. That

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S RUDRA BUILDWELL HOMES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4119/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaecr9589E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

penalty under section 271.) c) That the CIT(A) has also dealt this issue in detail that the evidence called from CFM ARC were called for under the power of enquiry u/s 250(4) and cannot be called as additional evidence. Please refer Pg-34 of CIT(A) order d) It is a settled position of law that the powers

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM vs. PLATINUM TOWERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1307/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 271D

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed." 36. The Id. DR had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adinath Builders Pvt Ltd [supra

M/S. ALLIED PERFUMERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5179/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3989/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3990/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5179/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 3991/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3992/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Rajiv Saxena & Co. Adv. & Solictors, Central Circle-1, H.O. 318-D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi-110091 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca4321K Assessee By : Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. & Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 145Section 153Section 153A

217/- as against income returned at Rs. 1,35,72,310/-. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that during the course of search, admittedly no incriminating material was found as a result of search conducted under section 132(1) of the Act, as such, learned

M/S. ALLIED PERFUMERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3989/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3989/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3990/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5179/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 3991/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3992/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Rajiv Saxena & Co. Adv. & Solictors, Central Circle-1, H.O. 318-D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi-110091 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca4321K Assessee By : Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. & Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 145Section 153Section 153A

217/- as against income returned at Rs. 1,35,72,310/-. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that during the course of search, admittedly no incriminating material was found as a result of search conducted under section 132(1) of the Act, as such, learned

M/S. ALLIED PERFUMERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3991/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3989/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3990/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5179/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 3991/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3992/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Rajiv Saxena & Co. Adv. & Solictors, Central Circle-1, H.O. 318-D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi-110091 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca4321K Assessee By : Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. & Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 145Section 153Section 153A

217/- as against income returned at Rs. 1,35,72,310/-. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that during the course of search, admittedly no incriminating material was found as a result of search conducted under section 132(1) of the Act, as such, learned

M/S. ALLIED PERFUMERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3992/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3989/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3990/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5179/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 3991/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3992/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Rajiv Saxena & Co. Adv. & Solictors, Central Circle-1, H.O. 318-D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi-110091 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca4321K Assessee By : Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. & Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 145Section 153Section 153A

217/- as against income returned at Rs. 1,35,72,310/-. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that during the course of search, admittedly no incriminating material was found as a result of search conducted under section 132(1) of the Act, as such, learned

M/S. ALLIED PERFUMERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3990/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3989/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3990/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5179/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 3991/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3992/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Rajiv Saxena & Co. Adv. & Solictors, Central Circle-1, H.O. 318-D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi-110091 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca4321K Assessee By : Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. & Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 145Section 153Section 153A

217/- as against income returned at Rs. 1,35,72,310/-. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that during the course of search, admittedly no incriminating material was found as a result of search conducted under section 132(1) of the Act, as such, learned

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1306/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Gurugram, Deepak Kumar, Haryana 122016 H.No. 13/2, Dlf Phase-1, Lower Vs. Ground Floor, Gurugram, Haryana Pan Aaapk 4112 D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri T. James Singson, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-34, New Delhi Dated 27.06.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(4) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Us 271D Of The Act Relying On The Order Of The Hon 'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, cAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT(DR)
Section 269S

217 wherein the Hon'ble High Court had the occasion to decide on the fact that once the share application money is treated as an undisclosed income of the assessee us 68 of the Act, whether the initiation of proceedings us 269SS r.w.s 271D of the Act is valid? 23. On these facts, the Hon'ble High Court observed