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.

58 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 125clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi454Mumbai434Karnataka127Ahmedabad124Jaipur113Bangalore84Chennai79Pune58Hyderabad53Indore40Raipur38Allahabad37Ranchi35Amritsar34Calcutta34Kolkata34Surat29Chandigarh28Rajkot24Visakhapatnam24Lucknow17Agra13Nagpur13Cochin10Panaji8Dehradun7Cuttack6Jabalpur5Patna3SC2Rajasthan2Telangana2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)164Section 27479Addition to Income50Penalty46Section 143(3)30Search & Seizure16Disallowance16Section 40A(3)15Section 271

MR VIKAS JAYRAM BHUKAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

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

ITA 2483/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Singha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1(c) of the IT Act was defective since it does not specify the specific charge or violation of particular limb for which the penalty was required to be imposed. In support of this contention, copy of penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer is produced before the bench. Ld. AR submitted before the bench that

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

12
Section 153A11
Section 1110
Section 13(1)(c)10

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARAD SATARA vs. THE KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD, KARAD SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 919/PUN/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

section 143(3) proceedings the AO disallowed excess expenditure of Rs 2,08,09,305/- claimed u/s 36(i)(viia) of the IT Act for which provision was not made in the books of account . The disallowance of expenditure was confirmed by CIT(A) as well as by this Tribunal . On the basis of this disallowance the then AO proceeded

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act vide an order dated 28.03.2023. The Ld. AO notes the following as the reason for imposing the penalty “3.... The assessee has not submitted any supporting documents in response to the notices. Keeping in view the non submission of response by the assessee to the show cause notices, it is surmised that

HASMUKH HIRJI GADA,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1023/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271ASection 69A

section 115BBE of the IT Act, but the Assessing Officer failed to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT Act. In view of the above, a show cause notice u/s 263 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee stating that the Assessing Officer failed to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT Act and therefore

B U BHANDARI NAVLAKHA ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CEN CIR- 2(4),, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 489/PUN/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2011-12 B.U. Bhandari Navlakha Vs. Dcit, Associates, Central Circle-2(4), 1182/1/3, First Floor, Pune F.C. Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 005 Maharashtra Pan : Aagfb8150Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom.) has discussed in length initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c). The issue discussed by the Hon’ble High Court was whether the assessment order or the show cause notice of penalty u/s 274 rws 271 (1)(c) should be considered as the starting point of the penalty proceedings u/s 271

NANDU A.RAJPUT,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2835/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2832 To 2836/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2010-11

For Appellant: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40(3)Section 40A(3)

125, Arjun Hights, Near Warje Jakat Naka, Warje, Pune-411 052 PAN : AAPPR5684Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : None : Shri M.K. Verma Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 24.09.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY

NANDU A.RAJPUT,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2832/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2832 To 2836/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2010-11

For Appellant: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40(3)Section 40A(3)

125, Arjun Hights, Near Warje Jakat Naka, Warje, Pune-411 052 PAN : AAPPR5684Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : None : Shri M.K. Verma Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 24.09.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY

NANDU A.RAJPUT,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2836/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2832 To 2836/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2010-11

For Appellant: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40(3)Section 40A(3)

125, Arjun Hights, Near Warje Jakat Naka, Warje, Pune-411 052 PAN : AAPPR5684Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : None : Shri M.K. Verma Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 24.09.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY

NANDU A.RAJPUT,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2833/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2832 To 2836/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2010-11

For Appellant: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40(3)Section 40A(3)

125, Arjun Hights, Near Warje Jakat Naka, Warje, Pune-411 052 PAN : AAPPR5684Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : None : Shri M.K. Verma Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 24.09.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY

NANDU A.RAJPUT,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2834/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2832 To 2836/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2010-11

For Appellant: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40(3)Section 40A(3)

125, Arjun Hights, Near Warje Jakat Naka, Warje, Pune-411 052 PAN : AAPPR5684Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : None : Shri M.K. Verma Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 24.09.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), NASHIK vs. GANESH SAHAKARI BANK LTD., NASHIK

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 168/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 .......अपऩलधथी /Appellant Ito, Ward -1(1), Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Parmod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act." While issuing notice the Assessing Officer has not struck off irrelevant part in the show cause notice issued u/s. 274 and thus, the relevant extract of notice indicating charge for levy of penalty reads as under: "have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." In view

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SATARA vs. KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2600/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2600/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward- 1, Vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Satara. Ltd., A/P. 100/101, Shivaji Nagar, Karad, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara-415110. Pan : Aaaat7863R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C I T (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 59,00,884/- Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Holding That The Ao Was Not Able To Prove That Is A Fit Case For Imposition Of Penalty Either Under The Main Part Of Section U/S. 271(1)(C) Or Under The Deeming Provisions Of Explanation 1 To Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 36(1)(viia)

section 14A were inserted by finance Act, 2001 w. e .f. 01/04/1962, whereas in extant case disallowance relates to wrongful deduction claim which was confirmed by the Hon’ble ITAT. 4. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing

MANAV PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2420/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

section 271(1)(c), whereas, penalty has been levied without mentioning any specific Charge or Limb in penalty order.” 8. Brief facts of the case as emanating from record are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Corrugated Boxes and filed return of income declaring at Nil. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings determining

MANAV PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2419/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

section 271(1)(c), whereas, penalty has been levied without mentioning any specific Charge or Limb in penalty order.” 8. Brief facts of the case as emanating from record are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Corrugated Boxes and filed return of income declaring at Nil. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings determining

MANAV PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2418/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

section 271(1)(c), whereas, penalty has been levied without mentioning any specific Charge or Limb in penalty order.” 8. Brief facts of the case as emanating from record are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Corrugated Boxes and filed return of income declaring at Nil. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings determining

SANJAY NAMDEO BHARTI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 155/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Verma
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

125 (Guj)]. 4] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the assessee include that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of poultry farming. Assessee filed the return of income on 08-11-2011 declaring total income of Rs.84

MANOJ S. GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1327/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1327/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Manoj S. Gugale 652, Shantisadan, Topkhana, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Adzpg9595N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 3, Ahmednagar

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

u/s 271(1)(c) had erred in not appreciating the following important facts: a) The appellant had offered additional income, which constitutes a voluntary and bonafide act. b) In compliance of the disclosure, the appellant had filed the revised statement incorporating the additional income during the course of assessment proceedings also claimed the TDS voluntarily, which was remained

NEELESH SATISH KANADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2773/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Neelesh Satish Kanade, Vs. Acit, 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Central Circle-2(1), Model Colony, Pune Pune 411 016 Pan : Agdpk4376L Appellant Respondent

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 274 was issued: `for concealing the income/furnishing inaccurate on income‟. As against this, the items which led to the imposition of penalty are only in the realm of „furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income‟. The question arises as to whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in such circumstances is sustainable? 7. Recently, the full Bench

SHARAD BHASKARRAO GAIKWAD,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 917/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.917/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad, The Income Tax T.No.1, Vanai Apartment, V Officer, Gangapur Road, Behind S Nashik. Kulswamini Apart, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar-Ca, Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 02.05.2023 Emanating From Penalty Order Dated 17.02.2022 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. The Ld.Authorised Representative(Ld.Ar) Of The Assessee Filed Written Submission. Vide Written Submission Ld.Ar Invited Our Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A] Attention To The Notice Dated 24.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 Issued By Assessing Officer(Ao) Which Was The First Notice With Reference To The Penalty. Ld.Ar In The Written Submission Explained That Nowhere In The Notice Section 271(1)(C) Is Mentioned. Nowhere In The Notice, The Assessing Officer Has Clarified, Whether It Is For Concealment Of Income Or For Filing Inaccurate Particulars.

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961, as the Assessing Officer has failed to mention any section in the impugned notice. 4.3 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajinder Kumar Somani 125 ITR 756 (Delhi)[30-04-1980] has observed as under regarding initiation of penalty : Quote, “In the present case, unfortunately

WARANA INDUSTRIES LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1284/PUN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1284/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Warana Industries Limited, The Acit, Circle-1, Gat No.795, Tatyasaheb Kore Vs Kolhapur. Nager, Chikurde Road, A/P: Warnanagar, Tal.Panhala, Kolhapur – 416113. Pan: Aaacw 1694 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranikh – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For The A.Y. 2006-07 Dated 16.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.05.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

125 Taxmann.com 253 and ITAT orders. 6. The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) and AO. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We have studied the penalty notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 06.04.2014 and observed that