CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal

9 SCC 589Supreme Court of India2009#466 most cited

What is CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal authority for?

The Supreme Court clarifies the scope of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that for its applicability, conditions stated in the provision must strictly exist, and making an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

200

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · incorrect claim in law · conditions for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · levy of penalty · AO satisfaction penalty

Also reported as

317 ITR 1183 Taxmann 4441 GSTR 66

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 115JBSection 274Section 14ASection 276CSection 37(1)Section 10AASection 143(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 276csection 276furnishing inaccurate particularspenalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomesection 274concealment of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)fees for technical servicessection 271(1)levy of penaltysection 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal

Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai vs. Centaur Merchantile Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 324/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ether the conditions mentioned in section 271(l)(c) exist in the case. It is because Explanation 1(A) and 1(B), as the deeming provisions, create a legal fiction as to the grounds for penalty proceedings. Indeed, the Apex Court in CIT v. Atu Mohan Binda [2009]317 ITR 1 (SC) has explained the-scope of section 271(l)(c) thus: "Explanation 1, appended to section 27(1) provides that if that person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by such person is found to be false, or the explanation offered by him is not substantiated, and he fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all th…

Dy CIT CC 2 (3), Mumbai vs. Ms Preity Zinta, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is treated as infructuous

ITA 6823/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ether the conditions mentioned in section 271(l)(c) exist in the case. It is because Explanation 1(A) and 1(B), as the deeming provisions, create a legal fiction as to the grounds for penalty proceedings. Indeed, the Apex Court in CIT v. Atu Mohan Binda [2009]317 ITR 1 (SC) has explained the-scope of section 271(l)(c) thus: "Explanation 1, appended to section 27(1) provides that if that person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by such person is found to be false, or the explanation offered by him is not substantiated, and he fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all th…

Sheikh Kutbuddin Habib, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 264/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of section 271(1)(c) has a/so been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369 and CIT v.Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589.” In the instant case, AO's satisfaction may not have been explicitly recorded in the assessment order but the fact that penalty proceedings have been initiated during assessment proceedings, that too after discussion of facts and circumstances, would amount to AO's satisfaction. In view of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the…

Sheikh Kutbuddin Habib, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 263/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of section 271(1)(c) has a/so been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369 and CIT v.Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589.” In the instant case, AO's satisfaction may not have been explicitly recorded in the assessment order but the fact that penalty proceedings have been initiated during assessment proceedings, that too after discussion of facts and circumstances, would amount to AO's satisfaction. In view of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the…

M/S. Alliance Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by th assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2467/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 14A

…faction of the AO over the claim made by the assessee should be inferred from the observations made by him in the assessment order. We find support for this proposition from the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd,(2014)(1 SCC 674) wherein it was observed as under:- “10. The AO has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing.” Even though, the above said observation was made in the context of penalty levied…

M/S. Alliance Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by th assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2466/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 14A

…faction of the AO over the claim made by the assessee should be inferred from the observations made by him in the assessment order. We find support for this proposition from the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd,(2014)(1 SCC 674) wherein it was observed as under:- “10. The AO has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing.” Even though, the above said observation was made in the context of penalty levied…

M/S. Alliance Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by th assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2465/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 14A

…faction of the AO over the claim made by the assessee should be inferred from the observations made by him in the assessment order. We find support for this proposition from the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd,(2014)(1 SCC 674) wherein it was observed as under:- “10. The AO has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing.” Even though, the above said observation was made in the context of penalty levied…

M/S. Alliance Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Bengalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by th assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2464/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 14A

…faction of the AO over the claim made by the assessee should be inferred from the observations made by him in the assessment order. We find support for this proposition from the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd,(2014)(1 SCC 674) wherein it was observed as under:- “10. The AO has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing.” Even though, the above said observation was made in the context of penalty levied…

Commissioner of Income Tax (It & Tp) vs. M/S. Dongfang Electric Corporation

ITAT/66/2018HC Calcutta09 Jul 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…auses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 271(1) have been satisfied would be reached only after the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 26. In Mak Data Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax – II (2014) 1 SCC 674 [paragraphs 9 to 13], Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) and Section 274 of the Act, 1961 in the context of surrender of income after search and seizure and after observing that surrender of income is concealment as the surrender was not voluntary, and held as under:- “9. The AO, in our view, shall not be car…

M/S. Abbott Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5819/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 271(1)(c)

…ded on all the additions made as per the calculations available in the penalty order. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer while levying the penalty, relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. AtuI Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1, the judgment of Dharmendra Textile 306 ITR 277 as also the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 7 of 2010 dated 17.05.2010. All such judgments are distinguishable on facts and are not relevant. The Ld. AR submitted that the main item of disallowance i.e. loss on account of forfeiture of advanc…

Kailash Chander Malhotra HUF, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-45(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5960/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Kailash Chander Malhotra, Huf, Vs Acit, L-7A (Lgf), South Extension Part-2, Circle-45(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaahk4297H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th April 2019 Of The Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

…ord his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(l)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCCO 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589.” 9. He submitted that as per the above decision, the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore, the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee should be rejected and there is no 6 infirmity in the assessment and penalty order of the AO as well as in the notice issued while initiati…

Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad 14.Dilip N.Shroff v/s JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) 15. GIT v/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd (2010)322ITR0158(SC) 16.UOI v/s Raiasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2010)1GSTR 66(SC) 17 CIT V/s Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC) 18. Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd.V/s CIT (2012)348 ITR 306(SC) 19. CIT V/s SomamrEvergreen Knits Ltd (2013)352ITR592(Bom.) 20. CIT V/s Smt Kaushalya (1994)75 Taxman 549 (Bombay) 21.Maharai Garage & Co. V/s CIT Naqpur 85 taxmann.comSG (Bombay 22. (1970) 77 ITR 107(SC1 Jain Brothers Vs Union of India Regarding limbs of Notice 23. Kar…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. Dorf Ketal Chemicals (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4682/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh Patel, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Ojha, &
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 271(1)(c)

…penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings. Stating that just because the quantum assessment is upheld in appeal, it does not mean that penalty is leviable. Further relying on the decision in CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC) and UoI v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mill (2009) 180 Taxman 609 (SC), the Ld. counsel explains that the contention of the AO that wherever there is a difference between the returned and assessed income, there is an inference of concealment as a rule, is not a correct contention. 11 M/s Dorf-Detal Chemical ITA Nos. 4683 & 4682/Mum/2017 Fina…

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.(Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1162/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…iminal proceedings which is not held good by the Supreme Court subsequently. The scope of Section 271(1)(c} has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC369 and CITv. Atul Mohan Binda/[2009] 9 SCC 589. In the case of CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "a close look at section 271(1)(c) and the Explanation (1) appended thereto would show that in the course of any proceedings under Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT the Act, inter alia, if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that a person has…

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.(Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…iminal proceedings which is not held good by the Supreme Court subsequently. The scope of Section 271(1)(c} has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC369 and CITv. Atul Mohan Binda/[2009] 9 SCC 589. In the case of CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "a close look at section 271(1)(c) and the Explanation (1) appended thereto would show that in the course of any proceedings under Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT the Act, inter alia, if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that a person has…

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.(Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…iminal proceedings which is not held good by the Supreme Court subsequently. The scope of Section 271(1)(c} has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC369 and CITv. Atul Mohan Binda/[2009] 9 SCC 589. In the case of CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "a close look at section 271(1)(c) and the Explanation (1) appended thereto would show that in the course of any proceedings under Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT the Act, inter alia, if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that a person has…

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…iminal proceedings which is not held good by the Supreme Court subsequently. The scope of Section 271(1)(c} has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC369 and CITv. Atul Mohan Binda/[2009] 9 SCC 589. In the case of CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "a close look at section 271(1)(c) and the Explanation (1) appended thereto would show that in the course of any proceedings under Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT the Act, inter alia, if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that a person has…

Bhavesh Pravinchandra Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 816/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bhaveshpravinchandrasheth Assistant Commissioner Of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aavps0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Biren Gubhawala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 BhaveshPravinchandraSheth Assistant Commissioner of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN No. AAVPS0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, AR Revenue by : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, DR Last Date of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date of pronouncement: 30/09/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an app…

Ashtavinayak Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir. 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5367/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Ashtavinayaka Jcit Circle 22(3), Mumbai. Construction, Vs. Plot No. R-478, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Rabale, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Pan No. Aadfa1724G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.K. Mishra, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…22(2) Mumbai, Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC), CIT M/s Ashtavinayaka Constructions 5 v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 0158(SC), UOI v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2010) 1 GSTR 66 (SC), CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC), Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2012)348 ITR 306(SC), CIT v. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd (2013)352 ITR 592 (Bom.), CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya (1994) 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay), Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT Nagpur 85 taxmann.com 86 (Bombay), Jain Brothers Vs Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107(SC) and M/s Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory. 7. I…

Smt. Suman Lakhani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…se the assessee has been able to prove and establish that the claim was made bona fide and all particulars relating thereto were furnished before the AO before penalty is imposed. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Mohan Bindal (317 ITR 1) that the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) is a civil liability albeit a strict liability. It has been further judicially held that the civil liability of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) cannot be construed to mean that the penalty is an automatic consequence of an addition made to the income. The only impact of liability being civil liability is that the mensrea or…