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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 73clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,295Mumbai980Ahmedabad246Jaipur210Chennai191Indore174Bangalore163Kolkata155Hyderabad140Karnataka123Raipur110Pune99Visakhapatnam71Chandigarh64Cuttack56Cochin47Lucknow38Calcutta35Amritsar34Rajkot32Surat28Allahabad28Ranchi25Dehradun18Kerala14Guwahati12Nagpur11Patna10Panaji9Jodhpur8Jabalpur8Agra5Rajasthan3SC3Telangana2Varanasi2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)31Section 44A12Section 27410Penalty10Section 1487Section 2506Natural Justice5Section 143(3)4Section 454

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 162/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

Section 132(4)4
Addition to Income4
Search & Seizure4

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 185/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 184/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 161/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

SHAMBHU PRAKASH SAH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), PATNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on legal ground

ITA 36/PAT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for „concealing/ furnishing of particulars of Income and thereafter issued the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the limb of the penalty 2 AY: 2010-11 Shambhu Prakash Sah and finally imposed the penalty for concealment by filling of inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee challenged the Imposition

GANESH RAM DOKANIA,BANKA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Years: 2014-15 Ganesh Ram Dokania………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Dokania Market, Aliganj, Bihar-813102.. [Pan: Aadfg1795P] Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Patna…….………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Real Estate Business & The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 15.11.2016 In Response To Notice U/S 153A Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,56,350/-. Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & Subsequently, Assessment U/S. 153A/144 Was Completed At A Total Income Of Rs.25,67,79,232/- Wherein The Assessing Officer Imposed Penalty U/S. 271Aab Of The Act At Rs. 1,60,00,000/- On Undisclosed Income.

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

73 taxmann.com 248/242 Taxman 180 (SC). On the same lines it is the decision of this court in Pr. CIT v. Brijendra Kumar Poddar in [ITAT No. 215 of 2018, dated 23-11-2021]. As pointed out earlier, the show cause notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act did not furnish any particulars

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 68/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Jha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

73,827/- which is estimated @ 8% of the Gross receipt. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been justified in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271B of the Act. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has not been justified in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 48/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Jha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

73,827/- which is estimated @ 8% of the Gross receipt. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been justified in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271B of the Act. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has not been justified in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271

JITENDRA KUMAR RAY,LALGANJ, HAJIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) VAISHALI, HAJIPUR

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

ITA 344/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is delay by 256 days. In this regard, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 14.01.2026 stating the reasons for not filing appeal within the due date which is as under: “We enclose herewith an appeal u/s 253 of the I.T. Act 1961 against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to

For Respondent: Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 253Section 274Section 69

73,990/- under cash deposit unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s.115BBE of I. T. Act' 1961. which is arbitrary and unjustified. 6) For that the entire assessment order is bad both in law and facts of the case. 7) For that the demand made on account of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D is unsustainable in law being mechanical

RENU DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

ITA 672/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer 2 Renu Devi made an addition of Rs.22,96,688/ on account of capital gain and demanded tax of Rs.4,73,118/- and Rs.2,31,828/- as interest. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. The Ld. Addl./JCIT