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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai334Delhi271Ahmedabad141Jaipur140Hyderabad124Chennai97Indore85Pune63Kolkata54Rajkot52Bangalore49Surat43Chandigarh37Nagpur31Allahabad29Raipur18Agra16Lucknow16Patna12Visakhapatnam10Cuttack9Guwahati9Cochin9Jabalpur8Jodhpur7Amritsar6Dehradun1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 14816Section 14714Penalty9Section 271(1)(c)8Cash Deposit8Section 142(1)7Section 69A7Addition to Income7Section 144

GINJALA ATCHIRAJU, L/R. OF GINJALA SIMHADRI RAJU, ,KAKINADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 159/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

unexplained money received and assessed as income from other sources in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings U/s. 271

BAPATLA MAHILA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THRIFT SOCIET LIMITED,BAPATLA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WRD-1, BAPATLA

6
Unexplained Money6
Section 143(2)5
Section 271D5

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 321/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 321/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Op. Thrift Society Limited, Ward-1, Bapatla. Bapatla. Pan: Aaaab6442N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 69A

penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act 1961 for non 4 compliance of above mentioned statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued a final show-cause notice to the assessee on 18.02.2022 as to why the assessee’s case should not be decided on merit treating it as ex-parte

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. BHRATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PVT LTD, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 249/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Central Circle-1, Products Private Limited, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi Lakshmipuram Main Road, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Guntur-522007, Guntur – 522016, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 17/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Vs. Dcit, Products Private Limited, Central Circle-1, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur – 522016, Guntur-522007, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

money received from M/s. Gowtham Buddha Textile Park P. Ltd. The Ld. AO rejected the contention of the assessee as well as the confirmation of Mr. Arunachalam Manickavel and considered the cash deposits of Rs. 1.74 Crs as unexplained cash credit U/s. 68 of the Act and brought to tax as per section 115BBE of the Act. Further, the same

SRINIVASA RAO BAMMIDI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.330/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivasa Rao Bammidi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 53-27-3/2, Krm Colony, Ward-2(1), Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam-530013, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh-530013. Pan:Akwpb1983F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Sanjeevarao, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Sanjeevarao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on 23/06/2017. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC after considering the submissions of the assessee confirmed the penalty levied by the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved

SAMBASIVA RAO MUPPERA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR., GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 156/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.156/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Sambasiva Rao Muppera, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Dcdpm0224C Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

unexplained money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,23,41,750/- against the returned income of Rs. 3,49,250/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022. The Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271

CHIRANJEEVI SAHINI,SRIKAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Smt. A. Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the 3 Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC with a delay of 125 days. 3. On appeal, in the absence of any cogent explanation / reason to substantiate the belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC

SIMHADRI NAIDU SAMANTHULA,PALAKONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 410/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.410/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Simhadri Naidu Samanthula, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakonda. Ward-1, Pan: Amsps2903C Srikakulam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 05/11/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

unexplained money since the assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposits. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 35,62,576/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 147 r.s. 144B of the Act, dated 31/10/2023. The Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271

VASU KUMAR VADDI,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 21/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.20 & 21/Viz/2024 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vasu Kumar Vaddi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 16/372-16-1, Ward-1, Valandapalem, Industrial Estate Machilipatnam. Road, Machilipatnam – 521002, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aifpv 6289 F (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of : 25/06/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xi)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 271Section 69A

271 of the Act for the AY 2013-14. Since both the appeals are filed by the same assessee and the issues raised therein are inter-connected by way of quantum appeal and the penalty appeal, these two appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated order. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case

VASU KUMAR VADDI,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 20/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.20 & 21/Viz/2024 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vasu Kumar Vaddi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 16/372-16-1, Ward-1, Valandapalem, Industrial Estate Machilipatnam. Road, Machilipatnam – 521002, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aifpv 6289 F (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of : 25/06/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xi)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 271Section 69A

271 of the Act for the AY 2013-14. Since both the appeals are filed by the same assessee and the issues raised therein are inter-connected by way of quantum appeal and the penalty appeal, these two appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated order. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case

MAHANKALI JYOTHI,DUBLIN, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

money and determined the total income in accordance with the provisions of section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), considering the submissions made by the assessee granted partial relief to the extent