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.

26 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai134Delhi126Indore101Jaipur65Bangalore65Hyderabad51Chennai49Pune27Kolkata26Visakhapatnam24Karnataka23Lucknow21Ahmedabad19Cochin11Rajkot7Nagpur6Amritsar6Chandigarh5Panaji5Raipur3Cuttack3Surat2Jodhpur1Guwahati1Jabalpur1Agra1SC1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271D73Section 269S33Section 27131Penalty26Section 271(1)(c)16Section 143(3)14Section 271E14Section 271A9Section 2638Limitation/Time-bar

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1484/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

u/s 275(1)(c ) of the Act is to be reckoned from the date on which the JCIT initiated the proceedings and not from the date of assessment order. The operative portion of the said judgment is as under:- 11. The only case of the assessee is that if the period of limitation prescribed in Section

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

8
Addition to Income6
Condonation of Delay5

M/S S.R.ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION CO (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - MALDA., MALDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Himmatsinghka,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271D

271D was not well-founded and while referring to the CBDT Circular No. 387, dated 6- 7-1984 explaining the object of introducing the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act, it was held that it was not the intention of the legislature to penalize genuine flow of funds for meeting the urgent business necessities. Tribunal, Pune Bench

TARAI TRANSPORT CORPORATION,SILIGURI vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, SILIGURI

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

ITA 273/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

penalty imposed u/s 271D of the Act. For the sake of easy recall, the provisions of Section 273B of the Act are extracted as under: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 271

SMT. APARNA BISWAS ,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 49(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 990/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

SMT. APARNA BISWAS ,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 49(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 991/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

ACIT, CIR-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAM SINGH RATHORE,, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 864/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee.Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 27Section 271Section 271D

section 271 D or 271 E. Therefore, if the JCIT imposes penalty without issuing show cause notice and initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271D or 271 E of the Act, then the imposition of such penalty is liable to be cancelled on the ground that there was no show cause notice issued and therefore no valid initiation of penalty proceedings. The Assessee

RANJIT ROY,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RANGE - 23, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2254/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2254/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

u/s 271D of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A), but without success. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that Ranjit Roy (HUF). of the appellant and the appellant

DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

u/s. 273B of the Act which reads as under:- “[Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. 273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of 71[clause (b) of sub- of] 72[section 271A, 73[section section (1) 271, section 271AA,] section 271B73[, section 271BA], 74[section 271C, 75[section 271BB,] section 271CA,] section 271D

BINOD KUMAR AGARWAL.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 2,JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed as stated above

ITA 237/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjun, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 271E

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. “ In view of aforesaid facts and findings given thereon and respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case (referred to supra

ANUNOY MUKHERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 555/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 555/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anunoy Mukherjee Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Vs (4), Durgapur Near Hdfc Bank Bamunara Kanksa Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Cydpm3295A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & Shri Rohitash Gupta, C.A. Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/07/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of One (1) Day In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Only Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act At Rs.1,36,214/-, Levied For Not Getting The Books Of Account Audited U/S 44Ab Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 194CSection 250Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271G

u/s 273B of the Act, which reads as under:- “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], [ section 271BB,] section 271C, [ section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [ section 271F, [ section 271FA,] [ section 271FAB,] [ section 271FB,] [ section 271G,]] [ section 271GA,] [ section 271GB,] [ section 271H

ITO,WARD-7(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KEDIA POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1516/KOL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:1999-00

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)

Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” In compliance to the above direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court we have to adjudicate whether the penalty order passed by ACIT, Range-7 Kolkata u/s 271D of the Act is covered u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SUNIL KUMAR KUNDU, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is here by dismissed

ITA 2110/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 253Section 269TSection 271Section 3

271(e ) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1 crore has been imposed on the assessee company allegedly for violating the Section 269T of the Act. The submission of the AR is that his case is squarely covered in the decision of Kolkata ITAT passed in the case of M/s Tarai Transport Corporation vs. JCIT in ITA NO. 273/Kol/2024

SRI HIRANMOY GON,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 9, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chiranjit Goswami, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

section 273B, of the Act. Therefore, AO imposed the penalty u/s. 271 D of the Act to the tune of Rs. 9,65,208/­. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the penalty imposed u/s. 271D

M/S MUKHERJEE ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 33(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 401/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 M/S Mukherjee Enterprise, V/S. Income Tax Officer, 63/4, Harish Chatterjee Ward-33(3), 10B, Street, Kolkta-700 025 Middleton Row, [Pan No.Aaffm 1374 C] Kolkata - 700071 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

U/s 271A rejecting app’s explanation for failure to produce the books of account.” 5. Shri Gauri Prasad Sen, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Vivek Verma, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue. 6. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Ld. AR submitted paper

SRI PLABAN KUMAR BASU,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O. WARD - 1(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2009-10

Section 269Section 271Section 271D

u/s 271D r.w.s. 269SS ITA No.1088/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 Sri Plaban Kr. Basu Vs. ITO Wd-1(1), Bwn Page 2 penalty(ies), in case of alleged loans availed from family-members. The CIT(A) has affirmed the impugned penal action as follows:- “3. "नणय /Decision: All the grounds relate to the lone effective issue of levy of penalty under

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. C.I.T., CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

u/s 271D of the Act, dated 28.12.2022. I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2021-22 Gurupada Maji. Since the issues in all the four appeals are common, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. We will take up the appeal

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

u/s 271D of the Act, dated 28.12.2022. I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2021-22 Gurupada Maji. Since the issues in all the four appeals are common, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. We will take up the appeal

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. C.I.T., CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 393/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

u/s 271D of the Act, dated 28.12.2022. I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2021-22 Gurupada Maji. Since the issues in all the four appeals are common, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. We will take up the appeal

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. C.I.T., CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

u/s 271D of the Act, dated 28.12.2022. I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2021-22 Gurupada Maji. Since the issues in all the four appeals are common, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. We will take up the appeal

JAGANNATH BANERJEE,BANKURA vs. JCIT, RANGE-3, BANKURA, BANKURA

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

ITA 1835/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1835/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Jcit, Range-3, Bankura Jagannath Banerjee Mandiha, P.O: Medinipur Gram, Dist: Bankura, Pin-722144 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajapb 0295 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby : Shri S.M. Surana & D.K. Sen, Adv. Respondent By :Shri Saurabh Kumar, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Durgapur In Appeal No.07/Cit(A)/Dgp/2015-16 Dated, 22.06.2017, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Jt. Cit U/S 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 11.03.2015. 2. The Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is As Under: “1.For That The Order Passed U/S 271D By The Ld. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction As The Order Is Barred By Limitation & Violative Of The Provision Envisaged U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act. 2.For That The Ld. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.16,00,000/- U/S 271D As He Did Not Dwell Upon The Reasonable Cause Of Failure Stated By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana & D.K. Sen, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, ACIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2.For that the ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in imposing penalty of Rs.16,00,000/- u/s 271D as he did not dwell upon the reasonable cause of failure stated by the appellant. Jagannath Banerjee Assessment Year: 2011-12 3.For that