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.

16 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore56Indore45Delhi43Cochin40Mumbai35Surat32Chennai30Jaipur28Hyderabad24Kolkata16Amritsar13Rajkot13Visakhapatnam8Pune8Ahmedabad7Allahabad4Jabalpur4Guwahati3Nagpur3Agra2Raipur2Chandigarh2Cuttack2Jodhpur2

Key Topics

Section 271A21Section 271B19Section 44A17Penalty15Section 27412Section 273B9Addition to Income9Section 1488Section 2507Section 147

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

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

7
Survey u/s 133A6
Limitation/Time-bar3
ITA 802/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 803/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 804/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR. 4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 805/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 806/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

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

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1804/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das..……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ramkrishnanagar Laskarpur, Alipore, 24 Parganas (S), W.B - 743515. [Pan: Ajapd6700B] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri B. B. Payra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019–20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2019-20. In The Absence Of Voluntary Compliance, The Assessing Officer Initiated Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By Making Following Additions:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 15Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 45Section 56Section 69ASection 69B

Section 273B of the Act when the assessee has finally complied with the notice issued by the Assessing Officer the penalty is not imposable as the explanation filed by the assessee was finally found to be correct and accepted in the quantum appeal. Consequently, the penalty levied u/s. 271

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3175/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

273B): That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had a "reasonable cause" for the delay in filing the audit report. The appellant is a resident of a remote village, is not technologically proficient, and was entirely dependent on a tax consultant who failed to timely inform him of the portal-based notices. 3. Audit Report Already

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3174/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

273B): That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had a "reasonable cause" for the delay in filing the audit report. The appellant is a resident of a remote village, is not technologically proficient, and was entirely dependent on a tax consultant who failed to timely inform him of the portal-based notices. 3. Audit Report Already

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3173/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

273B): That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had a "reasonable cause" for the delay in filing the audit report. The appellant is a resident of a remote village, is not technologically proficient, and was entirely dependent on a tax consultant who failed to timely inform him of the portal-based notices. 3. Audit Report Already

PRITI SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD -3(1), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Coubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1387 & 1388/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Priti Somani, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Axdps 0604 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

section 271(1)( c) of the Act] in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein the Hon'ble High Court following its own decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 has held that if the penalty notice is vague, then

PRITI SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Coubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1387 & 1388/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Priti Somani, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Axdps 0604 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

section 271(1)( c) of the Act] in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein the Hon'ble High Court following its own decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 has held that if the penalty notice is vague, then

ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Anita Basak Acit, Central Circle 1(1), C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Kolkata, Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite 110 Shanti Pally, 5 Th Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, West Bengal-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahhpb5785B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 1Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144ASection 145(3)Section 270ASection 271Section 271ASection 44A

u/s 44AB of the Act nonetheless, there may Anita Basak; A.Y. 2018-19 be being shortcomings in the books of account. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Third Member decision in case of ACIT Vs. Aggarwal Construction Co. (2007) 106 ITD 129 (Chandigarh) dated 29.01.2007, wherein it has been held as under:- “15. I have

TURNER MORRISON LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR, KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 530/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)

u/s 143(1) passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant and the material on record have been considered. After considering the rectification order passed by the A.O., CPC, Bengaluru, the TDS of Rs. 19,15,979/- was not allowed by the A.O., CPC since the data of TDS deducted by M/s Cox and King Limited was not fully available

RITU DUGGAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1122/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 221(1)Section 250Section 5

271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs.30,000/-. We find that the penalty was imposed on account of non-compliances on part of the assessee but the assessment order was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act which means that after the initial non-appearance, the assessee has subsequently co-operated in the assessment proceedings. Subsequently we notice that