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.

110 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,139Mumbai1,076Ahmedabad316Jaipur279Bangalore192Raipur127Karnataka125Pune110Kolkata109Chennai108Hyderabad105Indore102Chandigarh85Surat61Rajkot52Amritsar41Visakhapatnam34Calcutta34Nagpur32Lucknow30Allahabad29Cuttack28Cochin26Dehradun20Kerala14Agra12Jabalpur11Patna10Guwahati10Varanasi7Jodhpur5Ranchi4SC4Rajasthan2Telangana2Panaji1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)104Addition to Income68Section 143(3)57Penalty37Section 14836Section 115B33Section 69B30Section 14729Section 80I26

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 99/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Showing 1–20 of 110 · Page 1 of 6

Section 270A22
Survey u/s 133A22
Deduction21

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 102/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 96/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 105/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 95/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 100/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

54,554. This assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act on 25-11-2003 whereby the total income was determined at Rs. 2,22,688. In this assessment the addition in respect of interest expenditure was made. Simultaneously penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated on account of concealment of income/furnishing

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

54,554. This assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act on 25-11-2003 whereby the total income was determined at Rs. 2,22,688. In this assessment the addition in respect of interest expenditure was made. Simultaneously penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated on account of concealment of income/furnishing

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

54,554. This assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act on 25-11-2003 whereby the total income was determined at Rs. 2,22,688. In this assessment the addition in respect of interest expenditure was made. Simultaneously penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated on account of concealment of income/furnishing

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

u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act are initiated. Further, according to him, section 271AAB does not have two limbs whereas in section 271(1)(c) of the Act there are two limbs and therefore, he rejected the claim of the assesse challenging the validity of the penalty proceedings by distinguishing the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act are initiated. Further, according to him, section 271AAB does not have two limbs whereas in section 271(1)(c) of the Act there are two limbs and therefore, he rejected the claim of the assesse challenging the validity of the penalty proceedings by distinguishing the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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(l)(a) of the Act, for delay in filing of return. Though the assessee filed certain explanation, the AO overlooked it. The AO presumed that the assessee had no reason to offer for the delay, and therefore he was satisfied that the assessee had without any reasonable cause failed to file the return in time

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

54,97,018/- was made u/s 69A of the IT Act and the same was taxed as per the provisions of 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

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

penalty pertaining to the three quantum issues of section 54 deduction, commission and short term capital loss; respectively which is a clear cut instance of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Naik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(6)

271(1)(c) but not in the context of 270A, hence not applicable to facts of present case. Hence, I am of considered view that AO has rightly levied penalty u/s 270A of Rs.9,14,842/-. Consequently, Grounds of Appeal relevant to the issue are Dismissed. 5. Dissatisfied the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds

MAHATMA PHULE ANUSUCHIT JATI JAMATI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SOOT GIRNINIYAMIT,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 521/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.521/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahatma Phule Anusuchit Jati Jamati Shetkari Sahakari Soot Girniniyamit, Gat No.71A, Sharda Nagar, Sohale Road, Wagholi, Solapur-413253. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaaam1598A बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Solapur. Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-7, Pune Dated 12.02.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) A Sum Of Rs.52,62,990/- Without Specifying The Limb Under Which Penalty Is Levied & Therefore Entire Penalty Order Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Struck Down. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Lower Authorities Have Erred In Levying The Penalty Of Rs.52,61,990/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Disregarding Appellant’S Contention In This Regard. The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Alter, Modify, Delete Above Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing, In The Interest Of Natural Justice.”

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

54,91,000/- towards government share capital fund. When the assessee was asked to explain the same, the assessee did not give any satisfactorily reply. Hence, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceeding stating that “Penal proceedings u/s 274 read with section 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE vs. M/S. GOKHALE SABADE ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

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

ITA 867/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.V. DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

54,166/- vide order dated 30.09.2016 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above penalty order, an appeal was preferred before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order held that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra

SURJITSINGH SEVAKSINGH BAGGA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2566/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act on the denial of claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Before us, assessee has submitted that he had purchased land for construction of the house and also utilized the capital gains which was deposited in the bank account for the purpose of construction. It is assessee’s submission that he had furnished

ASHOK V.KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1256/PUN/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1255 & 1256/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Shri Ashok V.Kotecha, The Dcit, Central Circle- 4, Teachers Colony, Ring Road, Vs 1, Nashik. Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Abmpk 4173 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Shri Hari Krishan & Jaygobind Palai – Ar Assessee By Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune Dated 27.04.2018 For The A.Y.S 2006-07 & 2007-08, Emanating From The Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2017. Since The Facts & Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Same, Therefore, Two Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Are Decided Together By A Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take The Appeal In Ita No.1255/Pun/2018 For A.Y.2006-07 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned

Section 127Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

penalty u/s 274 r w s 271(l)(c) amounting to Rs. 3,54,720/- [C] General: - • The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. • A Detailed paper book along with case laws will be submitted at the time of hearing. • This appeal has been filed on time and may please

ASHOK V.KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1255/PUN/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1255 & 1256/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Shri Ashok V.Kotecha, The Dcit, Central Circle- 4, Teachers Colony, Ring Road, Vs 1, Nashik. Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Abmpk 4173 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Shri Hari Krishan & Jaygobind Palai – Ar Assessee By Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune Dated 27.04.2018 For The A.Y.S 2006-07 & 2007-08, Emanating From The Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2017. Since The Facts & Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Same, Therefore, Two Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Are Decided Together By A Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take The Appeal In Ita No.1255/Pun/2018 For A.Y.2006-07 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned

Section 127Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

penalty u/s 274 r w s 271(l)(c) amounting to Rs. 3,54,720/- [C] General: - • The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. • A Detailed paper book along with case laws will be submitted at the time of hearing. • This appeal has been filed on time and may please