IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years : 2013-14 to

2019-20 Shri Geevagoudanahalli The Deputy Lakshminarayana Ravi, Commissioner of Sri Venkateshwara Nilaya, Income Tax, Near Telephone Exchange, Central Circle – Jayanagar East, 2[2], Tumkur – 572 102. Vs.

Bangalore.

PAN: ACCPL0739R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 23-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17-10-2025

ORDER

PER BENCH These seven appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 18/02/2025 for the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17 and dated

20/02/2025 for the A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2019-20.

2. Insofar as the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17 are concerned, the appeals are filed against the imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals relating to the A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2019-20 are related to the imposition of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. Since in all the appeals for the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17 are relating to the same assessee and the issue is also common in all the appeals i.e. levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), all these appeals are disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

3. Similarly, the appeals in respect of A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2019-20 are also relating to the same assessee and the issue involved is also common in all these appeals i.e. levy of penalty u/s. 270A and hence these appeals are disposed of by way of this common order.

4. First we will take up the issue relating to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and take up the appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14 as the lead case and the decision arrived in the said appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years in which the similar penalty has been imposed. For the sake of convenience, we are extracting the grounds raised by the assessee in the A.Y. 2013-14.

“1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The order levying penalty u/s.271[1][c] of the Act, is bad in law in as much as. the learned A.O. has neither reached any satisfaction nor has such satisfaction been recorded in the assessment order and consequently, the very initiation of proceedings u/s.271[1][c] of the Act, is not in accordance with the requirements of Section 271[1] of the Act and consequently, the order of penalty founded on the invalid initiation of penalty proceedings is liable to be cancelled.

3. Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below are not justified in levying a penalty of Rs. 28,840/- u/s 271[1][c] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.

4. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the appellant has not concealed any particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty and therefore. the penalty levied u/s.271[1][c] of the Act requires to be cancelled.

5. The learned CIT[A} failed to appreciate that the appellant had disclosed the additional income in the return of income filed u/s 148 of the Act and therefore, no penalty for concealment of income could be imposed under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.

6. Without prejudice to the above, the penalty levied is highly excessive and liable to be reduced substantially.

7. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.”

5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and worked as a professor in Government Polytechnic, Tumkur and filed his original return of income on 30/07/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 5,37,950/-. Based