← All Phrases

“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)

Emerald Alchymicus Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1423/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Sri Pankaj Soni, Adv a/w Ms. S. Shanmugam,ARsFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, (CIT DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14ASection 270ASection 68Section 69A

erred in law and fact in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex-parte and confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income and 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1

Emerald Alchymicus Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1422/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Sri Pankaj Soni, Adv a/w Ms. S. Shanmugam,ARsFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, (CIT DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14ASection 270ASection 68Section 69A

erred in law and fact in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex-parte and confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income and 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1

Raju Verma, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Office, Central Circle

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 73/DDN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Raju Verma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 17/1 Curzon Road, Kotdwar Dehradun (Uttrakhand) (Uttrakhand) Pin 248 001 Pan No. Abipv8176F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KK Juneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Chaterjee, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

said that there was any 3 concealment of facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 8. In view of above material facts, circumstances and well settled principle of law, once the basis of penalty

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Imphal, Imphal vs. Shri Laishram Mani Singh, Imphal

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

ITA 31/GTY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Ao. It Is Seen That The Ld. Cit(A) Had Access To More

Section 132Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Assessing Officer, confronted assessee with audited financial statements for concerned period assessee revised return and declared certain profit Assessing Officer therefore, imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on assessee for concealing particular of its income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Apraava Renewable Energy Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1975/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt & Shri Gulab Thakor, A.Rs
Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

Officer under Section 37 of the Act was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.08.2019. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee for a sum of Rs.14,81,55,612/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

appeals since quantum addition have already been deleted by us on quantum appeals (supra), therefore, no basis is left for levying of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Further the show cause notices issued by the A.O. on 02.03.2015 prior to levy of the penalty ... Authorities against the Rajasthan High Court ruling in the case of ChittorgarhKendriyaSahakari Bank Ltd [2014] 41 taxmann.com 11 wherein it was held penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied upon the assessee on incorrect claim for deduction was not justifiable as the same was on account of change

Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

accordance with statutory provisions. Therefore, there is no unjustification in issuing a notice under Section 271(1)(c) as the immunity from penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was withdrawn and this direction was incorporated into the order. Since the assessee in his original return and the return filed ... Honourable ITAT was correct in holding that since the appeal in quantum proceedings is admitted by the Honourable High Court, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied?" 6. In all these appeals, we find that the appeals with reference to the quantum proceedings have been admitted

DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

accordance with statutory provisions. Therefore, there is no unjustification in issuing a notice under Section 271(1)(c) as the immunity from penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was withdrawn and this direction was incorporated into the order. Since the assessee in his original return and the return filed ... Honourable ITAT was correct in holding that since the appeal in quantum proceedings is admitted by the Honourable High Court, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied?" 6. In all these appeals, we find that the appeals with reference to the quantum proceedings have been admitted

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 270A

refer to the previous return filed under Section 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 proviso ... 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

Hetal Ramanlal Shah, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1274/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Ms. Dalzin Madan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)(a)Section 40A(3)(b)

have been confirmed / restricted in the hands of the assessee on estimation basis, in view of various judicial precedents on the subject, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not liable to be levied on the assessee. 6. In response, Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations ... once additions have been made in the hands of the assessee on estimated basis, then there is no question of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Whitelene Chemicals [2013] 32 taxmann.com 192 (Gujarat

Padmakumar K P, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward-2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 452/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

against the assessee for the imposition of the penalty. Thus, in any view of the matter, we find that the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on the respondent/assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 cannot be legally sustained.” 9. In the instant case

M/S. Shree Laxmi Developers, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

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

ITA 678/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Bains, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

have been filed by the assessee against the quantum order for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15 and also against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A-Y. 2013-14 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short ... delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 10. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to various additions confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) to the income of the assessee in quantum proceedings

M/S. Shree Laxmi Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

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

ITA 677/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Bains, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

have been filed by the assessee against the quantum order for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15 and also against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A-Y. 2013-14 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short ... delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 10. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to various additions confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) to the income of the assessee in quantum proceedings

M/S. Shree Laxmi Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

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

ITA 676/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Bains, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

have been filed by the assessee against the quantum order for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15 and also against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A-Y. 2013-14 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short ... delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 10. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to various additions confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) to the income of the assessee in quantum proceedings

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1068/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

1062/Srt/2024 relates to quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer and ITA No. 1068/Srt/2024 relates to consequential levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved for both the years under consideration, both appeals filed by the assessee ... disputed purchases. This appeal is against the penalty imposed on the bogus purchases. Various courts have decided in their judgements that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on estimated additions which is the case here. The ITAT Mumbai has in a judgement, summed up as: Heard both

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Varachha Road, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1062/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

1062/Srt/2024 relates to quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer and ITA No. 1068/Srt/2024 relates to consequential levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved for both the years under consideration, both appeals filed by the assessee ... disputed purchases. This appeal is against the penalty imposed on the bogus purchases. Various courts have decided in their judgements that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on estimated additions which is the case here. The ITAT Mumbai has in a judgement, summed up as: Heard both

Riyas Nelliyote, Kuttiadi vs. ACIT, Circle -2(1), Kozhikode

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

ITA 767/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 54F

against the assessee for the imposition of the penalty. Thus, in any view of the matter, we find that the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on the respondent/assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 cannot be legally sustained.” 9. In the instant case

Prem Chawla Legal Heir of Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 680/IND/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M

M/S. Jagruti Computech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 1(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 5751/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)

appellant is allowed.” 8. We further, note that even the Penalty Order, dated 23/09/2022, pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-2014 levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has also been set aside by the Tribunal vide order, dated 24/02/2025, passed in ITA No.5752/Mum/2024 observing that during

Bhagwati Rajaram Chandora, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 18(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4786/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbhagwati Rajaram Chandora, Room No.30, 3Rd Floor, Ganesh Bhuwan, 80 Ramwadi, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – 400002 ............... Appellant Pan : Aecpc8718H V/S Ito, Ward – 18(1)(2), Mumbai - 400002 ……………… Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.AR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 234

interest under section 234 is consequential in nature, and therefore, need no separate adjudication. Further, the ground challenging the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is premature in nature, and therefore, is dismissed. 9 16. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed