“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)

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1904/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A

arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second ... seen with reference to the return that it is filed by the assessee. Thus, for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A

M/S G.D. Tambi & Sons, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 177/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 24

claim is not found to be bonafule, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act If we take the view that a cloim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation

M/S G.D. Tambi & Sons, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 176/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 24

Som Nath Virmani and Sons HUF, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused ... first available opportunity given to him. This response was however, not found satisfactory and the Learned AO levied a concealment penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order under M/s. Som Nath Virmani and Sons HUF section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated

Shashi Jivanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1969/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

resulted into loss of Rs.2,57,393/-. Considering this fact, the Assessing Officer was not correct in imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the profit amount of Rs.36,06,319/- without considering the loss of Rs.38,63,192/- as allowed ... Thus, when the income of the assessee was computed at Rs. Nil, the Assessing Officer was not correct in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of concealment of Rs.36,06,319/-. No penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could have been

Shashi Jivanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1968/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Shashi Jivanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1967/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Prabha Farms Private Limited, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1748/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.” 6. Ld. AR further relied on the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh ... 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

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeals are allowed

ITA 665/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

issued under section 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the AO did not mention under which the limb penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. Further, we find that the assessee also, inter-alia, placed reliance upon the decision ... find that the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 28/02/2020 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without dealing with the aforesaid submission of the assessee. In further appeal before the Tribunal, we find that

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeals are allowed

ITA 664/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax

Appeals are allowed

ITA 663/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Moraj Building Concepts Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 302/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-2015, vide notice, dated 03/02/2022, the Assessee was asked to show cause why penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 be levied in respect of the aforesaid addition ... before the Tribunal. On perusal of the grounds raised, we find that the Assessee has challenged the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, inter-alia, on the following grounds: “vi. the penalty was initiated without specifying any charge in the assessment order or penalty notices

Moraj Building Concepts Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 279/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Moraj Building Concepts Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 278/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

M/S Raj Sons, Hisar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hisar Circle, Hisar

ITA 1089/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1089/Del/2025

Bhl Forex and Finlease Limited, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-23, New Delhi

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

ITA 1181/DEL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanbhl Forex & Finlease Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle - 2, 6, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi. Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aabcb8886H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Gini Gandhi, Advocate Ms. Anu Bajaj, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 11.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). In This Regard, He Submitted That Assessee Has Filed Its Original Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Of The Act Which Was Belated Return & Declared The Loss. As Per The Provisions Of The Act, The Losses Declared In The Belated Returns

For Appellant: Ms. Gini Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). In this regard, he submitted that assessee has filed its original return of income

Kamini Krishna Kotak, Mumbai vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6640/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

aside quantum assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s.254 of the Act, yet certainly there can be no ground for levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act for the assessment under appeal where the facts are identical. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts ... issue stood decided in the favour of the Assessee on merits and therefore, the Assessing Officer had erred in levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) noted that for the Assessment Year 2010-2011, the Tribunal had, vide common order dated 01/07/2019 [passed

Kamini Krishna Kotak, Mumbai vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6610/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y. P. Trivedi, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

quantum assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act, yet certainly there can be no ground for levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act for the assessment under appeal where the facts are identical. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts ... issue stood decided in the favour of the Assessee on merits and therefore, the Assessing Officer had erred in levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) noted that for the Assessment Year 2010-2011, the Tribunal had, vide common order dated 01/07/2019 [passed

Kamini Krishna Kotak, Mumbai vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6602/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Naravatsinh Jagatsinh Chauhan, Mehsana vs. I.T.O. Ward 1, Patan

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

ITA 1255/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Respondent: Dr. Sanjay Kumar Lal, CIT-Dr and Ms.Trupti Patel, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

supported by documentary evidence at the assessment stage or before the CIT(A), resulting in confirmation of additions and levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). 11. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative has submitted that the assessee is an uneducated individual with limited financial means, who acted under ... root of the matter and form the basis of the explanation against the additions under section 68 and the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c), have not been verified at any stage of the proceedings. In our considered view, the facts as stated in the affidavits require proper