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.

24 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai181Delhi140Jaipur111Ahmedabad95Rajkot45Hyderabad42Surat39Indore38Pune33Lucknow24Bangalore24Chandigarh24Agra22Nagpur18Amritsar17Chennai16Kolkata16Patna10Visakhapatnam9Raipur9Jabalpur7Dehradun7Cuttack7Cochin6Guwahati6Jodhpur4Allahabad3Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 14736Section 69A33Section 14821Addition to Income19Penalty17Section 271(1)(c)15Section 14413Section 144B11Cash Deposit11Section 142(1)

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

section 234A, 234B and 243C of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 9 7. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c).” ITA. No.454/LKW/2024 1. On facts

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

9
Unexplained Money9
Condonation of Delay9

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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

69A and added to total income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding are initiated separately u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealment of income." Since, the AO has made addition on account of unexplained money; provisions of section

REETA DEVI,BANNA MAU LALGANJ RAEBARELI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RAEBARELI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 439/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 69C

69A of the Act. : Rs.90,76,952/- Addition u/s. 69C of the Act. : Rs.8,41,179/- Total income determined : Rs.99,18,131/- ITA No.440 & 439/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 12 4. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

REETA DEVI,BANNAMAU LALGANJ RAEBARELI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RAEBARELI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 440/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 69C

69A of the Act. : Rs.90,76,952/- Addition u/s. 69C of the Act. : Rs.8,41,179/- Total income determined : Rs.99,18,131/- ITA No.440 & 439/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 12 4. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

LALJI YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 729/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Lalji Yadav, Vs. Ito-1(2), 3/152A, Vivek Khand, Gomti Lucknow (New) Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.-226010 Pan:Aakpy2220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025 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), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 272A(1)(D) Levied By The Ito, Ward-9(1)(1), Lucknow Dated 27.01.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Giving Rise To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act, Has Been Set Aside By The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A' Vide Order Dated 13.11.2024 Passed In Ita No. 448/Lkw/2024, Restoring The Matter To The Assessing Officer For Passing The Assessment Order Afresh, The Impugned Order Dated 09.10.2024 Passed By Ld. "Cit(A)" As Well As Penalty Order U/S 272A(1)(D) Do Not Survive & Consequently The Order Passed By The Lower Authorities Deserve To Be Set Aside. 2. Because The Order Appealed Against Is Contrary To Facts, Law & Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

u/s 272A(1)(d) do not survive and consequently the order passed by the lower authorities deserve to be set aside. 2. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal

SANT HARAJINDAR SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERITO-2(4), PILIBHIT-1, PILIBHIT

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

ITA 565/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasant Harajindar Singh V. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Trilok Singh Santpipariya Pilibhit-1 Karam Puranpur, Pilibhit, Uttar Income Tax Office, Near Pradesh-262122. Lic Office, Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh-262001. Pan:Dlmps4218F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 69A

section 144 of the Income tax Act resulting into addition of Rs 1,09,47,800/ u/s 69A as unexplained deposit and Rs 3,16,609/-as interest earned. The AO has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

GOPAL JI MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6(5), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 349/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Gopal Ji Mishra V. The Income Tax Officer 6(5) K-1218, Ashiana Lucknow - New Kanpur Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Akjpm8317M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 69A

69A of the Act : Rs.15,85,904/- Addition u/s. 50C of the Act : Rs.25,92,873/- Net taxable income (rounded off) : Rs.48,08,630/- 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

NITIN DWIVEDI,HARDOI vs. CIT(A), HARDOI

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

ITA 362/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Nitin Dwivedi V. The Ito – 3(3) Avas Vikas Colony Hardoi Prahladpuri, Hardoi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ajfpd9057Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

69A is inapplicable. Mechanical reliance on low returned income Merely comparing returned income of 2,72,960 with demonetisation-period deposits, without analysing cash-flow statements, books of account and capital introduction, is arbitrary and contrary to CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (11- May-1994) read with post-demonetisation guidelines. Non-consideration of peak theory/telescoping The AO ought to have granted

M/S K.N.S. EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 14/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

u/s 69A of I. T. Act without appreciating that these Sale Proceeds duly disclosed in the ITR at Rs. 11,03,94,034/- along with Tax Audit Report and Audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account, hence the present addition of Rs. 5,60,64,577/- is invalid. (9) That additions upheld is highly excessive, contrary to the facts

GAGAN PREET KAUR VIRDI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6(2), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 290/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 131Section 142Section 147Section 151Section 69A

69A of the Act I.T.A. No.290/Lkw/2024 4 S.A. No.10/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2016-17 were not attracted and consequently, ld. "CIT(A)" should have deleted the addition of Rs.1,25,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under the said section. 9. BECAUSE the ld. "CIT(A)", while upholding the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act, failed to appreciate

SHAKIRA KHATOON( WIFE&L/H)LATE RAFEEQ AHMAD ANSARI,SITAPUR vs. DCIT, SITAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 62/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A and ShriFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.4 In other assessment years too, i.e., assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, similar addition has been made by the AO, treating the receipts from shipping bill for export as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee under section 69A

SHAKIRA KHATOON (WIFE&LH)LATE RAFEEQ AHMAD ANSARI,SITAPUR vs. DY.CIT, SITAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 63/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A and ShriFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.4 In other assessment years too, i.e., assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, similar addition has been made by the AO, treating the receipts from shipping bill for export as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee under section 69A

SHKIRA KHATOON W/O LATE RAFEEQ AHMAD ANSARI,SITAPUR vs. DCIT, SITAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A and ShriFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.4 In other assessment years too, i.e., assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, similar addition has been made by the AO, treating the receipts from shipping bill for export as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee under section 69A

RACHNA VARYANI,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KANPUR

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

ITA 23/LKW/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Rachna Varyani V. The Income Tax Officer 117, R.N. Block Ward 2(3) Ratan Lal Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaxpv4296Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee confirming the order of the AO. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well

ABSAR AHMAD,SITAPUR vs. ITO, SITAPUR

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

ITA 471/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow19 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2015-16 Absar Ahmad V. The Income Tax Officer S/O Ameer Ahmad Sitapur H.No.131, Godhana Anshik Sidhauli, Sitapur Tan/Pan:Akapa4017F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). He, accordingly, completed the assessment under section 147 read with 144 and 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.58,87,050/-. 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 274, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act. Aggrieved

MOHAMMAD FAHEEM,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE (I), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 238/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Faheem V. The Income Tax Officer Shan Timber Broker & Supplier Range 4(1) 268/122, Master Kanhaya Lal Road Lucknow Aishbagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abipf8034C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Hri Rohit Bhalla, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 05 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: hri Rohit Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

penalty proceedings under sections 271F and 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee. 4. Now, the Assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as NFAC by raising