“penalty under section 271(1)(c)”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)1,699 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court

953

citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT

292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court

812

citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court

672

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court

565

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya

216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court

511

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

Judgments citing penalty under section 271(1)(c)

ITO 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepika Anil Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 1885/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. HUMBLE PRAYER In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 416/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on technical grounds, without considering the substantive merits of the case, and failed to follow the principles laid ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on technical grounds, without considering the substantive merits of the case, and failed to follow the principles laid down

DCIT(Central Circle)-7(1), Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 415/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

Urmila Rajendra Mundra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ajmer

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)

were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing ... which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted

Sai Export Enterprises, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

ITA 339/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sai Export Enerprises .......... Appellant Mangad P.O., Kollam 691015 [Pan: Absfs2716A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tpo, Kollam .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Export Of Cashew Nuts. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 17.02.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 42,15,670/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our 4 Sai Export Enerprises opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted ... Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.” 6. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the facts of the present case does not warrant levy of penalty

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Arora, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3), Mumbai

ITA 61/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Arora Ito Ward 27(3)(2) House No. 4E, Asalfa Bandra Kurla Near Ghatkopar W Vs. Complex, Bandra E Mumbai-400 084. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Amgpa0936K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Paranjpe

Section 271(1)(c)

Date of pronouncement : 31/07/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above cited appeal, the Ld. AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act regarding cash deposited into the bank account which was not explained. From the penalty order ... section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Then the Ld. AO issued a show-cause notice asking the appellant as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied. The Ld. AO gave time to the appellant to submit his explanation on or before

Lall Construction Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 34(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1680/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

reinstitution of the respective appeal. ITA No.-1680/Del/2018 Lall Construc"on Co. 4. Since the very basis of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is under settlement as stated above, it is expedient to delete the penalty in question, subject to condition that in case the main

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Manipal Hospitals (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Ld

ITA 959/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) Vs. M/S. Manipal Hospitals Room No. 307, 3Rdfloor. (Bangalore) Private Limited C.R. Building, Queens Road 98/2, The Annex Bengaluru – 560001 Ruso Bagh Karnataka Off. Hal Airport Road Bengaluru – 560017 Karnataka Pan: Aaccv9562D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By: Sri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Department Represented By: Smt Prajakta Thakur, Jcit Date Of Hearing:09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi: 1. Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Dcit – Central Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru Against The Appellate Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru (“The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 28.02.2025 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By Dcit – Central

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

appeal is whether the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is correct while 5 6 M/s. Manipal Hospitals (Bangalore) Private Limited deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act or not. 12. The Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the penalty as per Paragraph Nos. 4.3 to 4.4 as under ... claim of the assessee whether the expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. On this aspect we do not find that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could have been levied. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro Products

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 1055/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

claim is not found to be bonafide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.7/2010 Page 14 of 18 If we take the view that a claim which is wholly untenable ... section 153C following search, which income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a case it was unnecessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 8.8 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1054/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

that he would und to be bonafide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. still not be liable to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. still not be liable to penalty ... return, it was a clear case of concealment disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a of income attracting penalty under section 271

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. Dict Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1052/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1051/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY

ITA 1050/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY

ITA 1049/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Aspee Sons, Solan vs. Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo

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

ITA 1167/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

conditions for eligibility under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. The AR further submitted that the AO’s imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unjustified, as there was no deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the appellant. The AR emphasized that the claim ... present case the primary issue before us pertains to the disallowance of deductions claimed on certain receipts and the consequential imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the issue of disallowance, we note that the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have

Suresh, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Panchkula

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1149/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

disregards the assessee’s reply dated 01.09.2018 and violates principles of natural justice, exacerbated by parallel proceedings and an undated order. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied prematurely, pending quantum appeal. 7.2 On Merits assessee submitted that the deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs in the assessee ... shall now proceed to deal with the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1149/Chd/2024, which pertains to the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the 5 Income Tax Act, 1961. It is noted that the said penalty was levied with reference to the addition made under

Suresh, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Panchkula

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1148/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Mayankkumar Rameshchandra Bhatt, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1284/AHD/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Mayankkumar Rameschandra Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) Bhatt Vs. Vadodara. B/202, Laljikrupa Society B/H. Mothers School Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Agypb 2066 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29 /07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2007–08, Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Dated 27.03.2015 Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(4), Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”].

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

share transaction was deleted, accepting the claim of long-term holding and STT-compliant sale. On the issue of initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c), the CIT(A) dismissed the challenge as premature, holding that penalty proceedings are separate and independent. Despite the affidavit and supplementary evidence ... share transaction was deleted, accepting the claim of long-term holding and STT-compliant sale. On the issue of initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c), the CIT(A) 4 dismissed the challenge as premature, holding that penalty proceedings are separate and independent. 4. Aggrieved by the order

Shivratan Motilal Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 606/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis

Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

paid advance tax before filing of the appeal. We further observe that the quantum addition appeal, on the basis of which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was levied, has already been remanded by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 14.02.2025 (supra