Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

50 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi742 Mumbai560 Ahmedabad303 Jaipur244 Indore199 Bangalore172 Chennai167 Pune132 Kolkata130 Hyderabad129 Raipur101 Rajkot96 Chandigarh82 Surat73 Amritsar63 Allahabad51 Lucknow50 Patna47 Visakhapatnam43 Ranchi41 Guwahati40 Nagpur32 Agra28 Cuttack25 Cochin21 Dehradun18 Jodhpur15 Jabalpur9 Panaji3 Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 14756 Section 271(1)(c)50 Section 14842 Addition to Income40 Natural Justice30 Penalty29 Section 69A23 Section 6816 Disallowance15 Section 250

DILEEP KUMAR OJHA,SITAPUR vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 453/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,22,195/ 4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

14

Section 142(1)14

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

ITA 304/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

u/s 271(1)(b) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes of law. 3. The Penalty imposed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principal of natural justice

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

ITA 301/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

u/s 271(1)(b) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes of law. 3. The Penalty imposed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principal of natural justice

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

ITA 302/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

u/s 271(1)(b) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes of law. 3. The Penalty imposed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principal of natural justice

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

ITA 303/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

u/s 271(1)(b) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes of law. 3. The Penalty imposed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principal of natural justice

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 249/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(b) of the Act dated 02-09-2022; and iv. Penalty order u/s 271F of the Act dated 19-09-2022. j. In the light of aforesaid facts, assessment order passed by Ld.AO is illegal, against the law of natural justice

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 251/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(b) of the Act dated 02-09-2022; and iv. Penalty order u/s 271F of the Act dated 19-09-2022. j. In the light of aforesaid facts, assessment order passed by Ld.AO is illegal, against the law of natural justice

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED MAHOLI AYYUBI CHAMBER, RANIGANJ, LAKHIMPUR KHERI-262001,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR-NEW, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 164/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act. (4) The penalty imposed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice

MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

ITA 257/LKW/2023[F.Y. 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271bSection 274Section 68

natural justice. 3. That the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961 is defective and without jurisdiction as being issued without specific limb. 4. Because of facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned assessing officer has erred in levying a penalty

MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

ITA 258/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271bSection 274Section 68

natural justice. 3. That the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961 is defective and without jurisdiction as being issued without specific limb. 4. Because of facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned assessing officer has erred in levying a penalty

SHRI MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (NOW ITO-1(2)), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

ITA 679/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271bSection 274Section 68

natural justice. 3. That the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961 is defective and without jurisdiction as being issued without specific limb. 4. Because of facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned assessing officer has erred in levying a penalty

KAPIL KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BAREILLY , BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

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

ITA 335/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in abeyance. 5.BECAUSE case laws relied by authorities below are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice

SHRI ROHIT AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(3), KANPUR

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

ITA 352/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rohit Agarwal V. Ito-3(3) Room No.108, 1St Floor Kanpur 49/52, General Ganj Radha Kripa, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abapa2045C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 154Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the vital evidence and supporting documents submitted by assessee is also against natural justice because the same is without any base and completely based on surmise/ guesswork. 4. That the hon'ble CIT Appeal-1 Kanpur has ignored the vital evidence while rejecting the Penalty appeal was that the assessee has filed

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 353/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 694ASection 69A

u/s 144 when submissions were made in the course of assessment proceedings. In view of the same, I hold that reasonable opportunity was provided to the Appellant and thus, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. The assessment order is, therefore, not bad in law on account of violation of principles of natural justice. Ground is, thus, dismissed

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 115JSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 80I

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/was again imposed on 18.12.2014. Considering the above facts as well as past records, prosecution proceedings u/s 276D of I.T. Act, 1961 have also been initiated for willfully withholding copy of Audit Report with all enclosures and annexures for the year under consideration alongwith preceeding two years; books of account and other

PRIME PRODUCTS LIMITED,KANPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 2(1)(1), KANPUR

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

ITA 514/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Prime Products Ltd., 87/8, Kalpi Vs. The Dy. Cit, Road, Kanpur Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur Pan: Aaacp8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer On 23.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Upholding Action Of Learned Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 94,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That On The Facts & In Law, The Notice Issued For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Dated 14/02/2020 Is Vague & Defective Since, It Does Not Specify The Limb Under Which Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Was Initiated. 4 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Offered An Explanation. The Penalty Proceedings & The Consequent Order Are Invalid & Void Ab Initio As The Same Were Initiated & Levied Solely On The Basis Of An Affidavit Without Independent Evidence Of Concealment.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

U/S 69 BASED ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS IS ITSELF DISPUTED AND UNDER CHALLENGE, AND NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED UNTIL FINALITY OF ASSESSMENT ON SUCH ADDITION. 7 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) NFAC HAS FAILED TO GIVE PROPER CONSIDERATION TO THE EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, THEREBY VIOLATING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

M/S JUPITER TRADELINKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY,. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 71/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Vs. Dcit, Limited, Dobiriyal Complex Gole Central Circle-1, Lucknow Market Mahanagar, Lucknow Pan: Aaccj0525G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.11.2024 Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 4.06.2019, Passed Under Section 271(1)(C). The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Both Law & Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Penalty Of 2,20,41,900/- Levied By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That: A. The Appellant Has Neither Concealed The Particulars Of Its Income Nor Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income; B. There Was No Failure On The Part Of The Appellant In Truly & Fully Disclosing All Material Facts C. Mere Disallowance Or Rejection Of The Claim Or Stand Taken By The Appellant Based On Reasonable Interpretation Of The Law Is Not Sufficient To Attract Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) 3. The Amount Of Penalty Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Invalid, Excessive & Unreasonable.”

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 271(1)(c) 3. The amount of penalty confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is invalid, excessive and unreasonable.” 1 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s Jupiter Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14, declaring a net income of Rs. 15,952/-. Subsequently

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 272/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 292C

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 292C

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 273/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 292C

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice