Section 272A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.465

Section 272A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 465 (Penalty for failure to answer questions, sign statements, Furnish information, returns or statements, allow inspections, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 465 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

141 judgments on BharatTax turn on Section 272A.

Judgments on Section 272A

Savita Mangesh Shirawale, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1578/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 147Section 272ASection 50CSection 54

Mohammad Ayoob Khan, Siddharth Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

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

ITA 176/LKW/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.176/Lkw/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mohammad Ayoob Khan V. Income Tax Officer Kishan Traders, Itwa, Siddharth Jail Road, Near Civil Line, Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-272192. Company Bagh, Niranjanpur, Basti, Uttar Pradesh-272001. Pan:Cdypk6281N अपीलाथी/(Appellant) प्रत्यथी/(Respondent) अपीलाथी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, Ca प्रत्यथी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22 04 2026 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 28 04 2026 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Kul Bharat.:

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 148Section 148ASection 249Section 69A

Nafishabibi Davji, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

ITA 1235/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Nafishabibi Davji, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

ITA 1234/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Nafishabibi Davji, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

ITA 1233/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Trusha Vrajendra Sanghavi, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2455/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2158/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2157/Ahd/2025 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2158/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gujarat Urban Development The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Co.Ltd. Gandhinagar Circle V/S. Karmayogi Bhavan It Office Block-1, Udhyog Bhavan B 1 Wing, Ground Floor Sector-11 Sector-10A Gandhinagar – 382 010 Gandhinagar – 382 010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 1330 R (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Ukti Shah, Ars Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr & Shri Arvind R. Kumbhare Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/012026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Ukti Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR and Shri Arvind R. Kumbhare Sr.DR

Section 234BSection 250Section 270A

Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2157/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Ukti Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR and Shri Arvind R. Kumbhare Sr.DR

Section 234BSection 250Section 270A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaya.C.I.T., Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad. General Manager, Bccl, Koyla Vs. Bhawan, Bccl Township, Dhanbad-826005 Pan No. Aaacb 7934 M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Het Ram, Churu vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4149/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Het Ram

Section 147Section 270ASection 271BSection 272A

Het Ram, Churu vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4148/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Het Ram

Section 147Section 270ASection 271BSection 272A

Het Ram, Churu vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4147/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Het Ram

Section 147Section 270ASection 271BSection 272A

Het Ram, Churu vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4146/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Het Ram

Section 147Section 270ASection 271BSection 272A

Apaasso Mali, Pune vs. ITO 11(1), Swargate

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

ITA 1110/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 249Section 249(2)

Vimal Pukhraj Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4305/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrivimal Pukhraj Jain Income Tax Officer Ward 806, Dheeraj Enclave, Borivali East, Vs. 42(1)(5) Opp. Bhor Industries, Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, 400066 Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipj6511H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. Karuna Kurle Shirdhankar /Revenue By: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 14.02.2023 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –Nfac Has Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 50,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer By Invoking Provisions Of Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Non-Compliance Of The Notices.” 3. At The Outset, It Is Notice That There Is A Delay In Filling Appeal Of 807 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. KarunaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)

Mr. Manoj N. Pere, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 745/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 743 To 745/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra DarekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 147Section 250Section 271F

Mr Manoj N Pere, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 744/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 743 To 745/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra DarekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 147Section 250Section 271F

Mr. Manoj N. Pere, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 743/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 743 To 745/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra DarekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 147Section 250Section 271F

Charsur Arts Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1753/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.:1753/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Charsur Arts Foundation, The Commissioner Of No. 72, M.C.P. Ramasamy Road, Vs. Income Tax (Exemption), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aabtc-1154-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hithesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Dated 16.05.2025 Passed Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Solitary Issue Argued On Merits Is With Regard To Maintainability Of Appeal Filed Against The Order Passed Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139

Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. Dct, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 211/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 1-59, Mig, Word Bank Barra, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur Kanpur-208027 Pan:Aaccw7342L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-1, Kanpur Passed Under Section 119 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 5.12.2024 Refusing To Condone The Delay In Filing The Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2022-23 With The Claimed Refund Of Rs. 10,000/-. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. That Due To Mistake Of Counsel, The Itr For The Ay 2022-23 Could Not Be Filed Of The Assessee Company, Whereas The Certificate Of The Counsel Was Also Filed, But Ignore The Same & Rejected The Petition Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act, Which Action Of The Pr. Cit Is Contrary To Fact & Be Quashed. 02. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S.119 Of The Income Tax Act Reject The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act Is Not Lawful, Bad In Law, Be Quashed. 03. That The Pr. Cit As Well As Cpc Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Arbitrarily Rejecting The Petition Of The Assessee Company To Rectify The Return Of Income, Which Should Ought To Have Done. A.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd. 04. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S 119 Dated 05.12.2024 Is Erroneous, Misconceived, Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Modified.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR

Section 10Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 153A