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.

62 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 253(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai487Delhi344Indore110Karnataka99Bangalore89Jaipur78Kolkata72Ahmedabad63Pune62Surat51Chennai48Allahabad47Hyderabad45Chandigarh45Ranchi35Amritsar27Rajkot24Panaji20Lucknow19Raipur18Cochin15Cuttack10Jabalpur9Jodhpur8Visakhapatnam7Patna7Guwahati5Agra5Nagpur2SC2Rajasthan1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)136Section 27474Penalty50Addition to Income48Section 143(3)43Section 10A27Section 271A24Disallowance22Section 153A19

VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

Section 13217
Section 80I17
Deduction13
Section 245H
Section 271(1)(c)

3. The learned I-T Authorities erred in law and on facts in levying penalty w.r.t. each and every issue of additional income offered by the appellant before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission The learned AO took the "liberty" granted by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission as if a "direction" to levy penalty. 4. The learned I-T Authorities erred

DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

3. The learned I-T Authorities erred in law and on facts in levying penalty w.r.t. each and every issue of additional income offered by the appellant before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission The learned AO took the "liberty" granted by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission as if a "direction" to levy penalty. 4. The learned I-T Authorities erred

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

3) of the Act for AY 2021-22 that the AO has specifically mentioned that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Act are initiated on the undisclosed income shown on cash sales. The appellant has contended that the AO has not mentioned specific clause of section 271AAB under which the penalty proceedings are initiated. Although, the appellant

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 553/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

3) of the Act for AY 2021-22 that the AO has specifically mentioned that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Act are initiated on the undisclosed income shown on cash sales. The appellant has contended that the AO has not mentioned specific clause of section 271AAB under which the penalty proceedings are initiated. Although, the appellant

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, ICHALKARANJI vs. SHRI. DANWADE KUTUBUDDIN SHAHABUDIN,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1688/PUN/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Jasnani
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)(c)

3 ITA No. 1688/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2005-06 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the Addl. CIT proceeded to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act basing on the statement of Shri Allabaksh M. Hussain Bagwan, an employee of the Patsanstha recorded u/s

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

3 filed and accordingly the assessment was completed by determining total income at Rs.53,00,560/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.9,41,160/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained income of Rs.43,51,400/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 407/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

253(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [from now ‘the Act’] challenging separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune [from now ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] all dt. 08/12/2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act which turndown separate orders of penalty [from now ‘PO’] passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AAB of the Act by the Dy. Commission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANAGBAD., AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD.

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 410/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

253(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [from now ‘the Act’] challenging separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune [from now ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] all dt. 08/12/2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act which turndown separate orders of penalty [from now ‘PO’] passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AAB of the Act by the Dy. Commission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 408/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

253(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [from now ‘the Act’] challenging separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune [from now ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] all dt. 08/12/2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act which turndown separate orders of penalty [from now ‘PO’] passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AAB of the Act by the Dy. Commission

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

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(1)(c). The Hon’ble court

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 55/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

3 penalty order merely stated that in view of the facts of the case of the appellant the said decisions were not applicable in appellant's case. The Assessing Officer accordingly could not accept the appellant's explanation made during the penalty proceedings as quoted in para 2 of the penalty order above and had levied minimum penalty

KISHOR MADHAV PARANJAPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1887/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 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)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

Section 2(14)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

3) was passed on 20/12/2017. The Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) was issued on 20/12/2017. There is no dispute on these dates. Thus, the penalty order was passed within Six(06) months of passing the assessment order. The relevant Section 275 is reproduced here as under : Section 275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall

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

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 748/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.741/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prakash Raman Chaudhari Garden View Bungalow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan: Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 271A

u/s 271AAA are separately initiated.” 6. The Assessing Officer thus, levied penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs @ 10% of undisclosed income of ₹ 20 lakhs, under section 271AAA of the Act. 7. The CIT(A) has upheld the levy of penalty rejecting the contention of assessee that additional income was on account of under-valuation of stock and there were no changes

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 741/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.741/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prakash Raman Chaudhari Garden View Bungalow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan: Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 271A

u/s 271AAA are separately initiated.” 6. The Assessing Officer thus, levied penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs @ 10% of undisclosed income of ₹ 20 lakhs, under section 271AAA of the Act. 7. The CIT(A) has upheld the levy of penalty rejecting the contention of assessee that additional income was on account of under-valuation of stock and there were no changes

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

253 (Bom.). The Ld. D.R. relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 10. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The main contention revolves around additional grounds raised, that no penalty is leviable on the notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant charge. We find, that the notice dated

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

253 (Bom.). The Ld. D.R. relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 10. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The main contention revolves around additional grounds raised, that no penalty is leviable on the notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant charge. We find, that the notice dated

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

253 (Bom.). The Ld. D.R. relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 10. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The main contention revolves around additional grounds raised, that no penalty is leviable on the notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant charge. We find, that the notice dated

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

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (4),, NASHIK vs. JITENDRA RAVINDRA MALPURE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1671/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Deoraj Shegaonkar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

253/-. The Assessing Officer has also initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. In response to initiation of penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply, which was not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer and he levied penalty vide order dated 22.03.2018 by observing that