“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)

Ch Rama Rao, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 345/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.344 & 345/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 2016-17) Ch Rama Rao V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 3(4) C.R. Building 4-99, Ramavarappadu Vijayawada- 520002 Vijayawada – 521108 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfc0545L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

vehemently argued that merely because of the disallowance of interest by the Revenue Authorities could not be a ground to invoke the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld.AR also pleaded that dis-agreement by the revenue for the claim of expenditure cannot be a ground ... Rama Rao hands of the firm which could not be accepted. Ld. DR therefore pleaded that Ld. AO has rightly levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act consequent to disallowance made during assessment on the interest due to personal utilisation of funds by the Managing Partner

Ch Rama Rao, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Vijayawada

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble Vice-

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

vehemently argued that merely because of the disallowance of interest by the Revenue Authorities could not be a ground to invoke the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld.AR also pleaded that dis-agreement by the revenue for the claim of expenditure cannot be a ground ... Rama Rao == hands of the firm which could not be accepted. Ld. DR therefore pleaded that Ld. AO has rightly levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act consequent to disallowance made during assessment on the interest due to personal utilisation of funds by the Managing Partner

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Palampur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

held that the assessee has committed a default by concealing income/ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which render it liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) and thereafter, the AO levied penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded which amounts to Rs.66,38,400/- which, on appeal ... fide and inadvertent error and not a case of intended concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not justified. It was accordingly submitted that penalty so levied and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) be directed

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Palampur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 804/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

held that the assessee has committed a default by concealing income/ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which render it liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) and thereafter, the AO levied penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded which amounts to Rs. 66,38,400/- which, on appeal ... fide and inadvertent error and not a case of intended concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not justified. It was accordingly submitted that penalty so levied and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) be directed

H Venkatesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1669/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Page 2 of 7 3. The brie facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who did not file ... further addition. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings in the assessment order and issued a show-cause notice for levying a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee filed a reply contending that he had not concealed any particulars of income and had furnished

Muthurathinam, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1St Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Avypm 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate By Virtual. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Penalty Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Sought To Be Urged By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] By Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ In Short) In Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Has Satisfied That Penalty Proceeding Is Being Initiated Separately For “Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income” Where As Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 04.01.2022 Levied Penalty For “Concealment Of Income”, Although In The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1) (C), The Ao Has Marked The Specified Limb As “That You Have Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income”.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate by virtualFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

issue sought to be urged by the assessee in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] by ignoring the fact that the assessing officer (‘AO’ in short) in assessment order dated ... income as 'Income from business'. Thus, the limb furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' was satisfied. Therefore, I hold that notice of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is valid and levy of penalty is also justified. 8.4 The case laws relied upon by the appellant

K M Bhangdiya (Jv), Nagpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12

ITA 346/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 271(1)(c)

respectively. 2. In all the appeals, the only identical issue raised by the assessees is levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") except variation in figures. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned A.R., Shri Ashok Bansal, appearing

K M Bhangdiya (Jv), Nagpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12

ITA 345/NAG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 271(1)(c)

M G Bhangdiya and Hitbhav Engineers Jv, Nagpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12

ITA 344/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 271(1)(c)

Mg Bhangdiya and Hitbhav Engineers Jv, Nagpur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12

ITA 343/NAG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 271(1)(c)

Krupal Vikrambhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1508/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1508/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Krupal Vikrambhai Patel The Income Tax Officer 4 Motibag Society, B/H. Ward – 6(1)(4), Vs. Choksi Park, Ahmedabad Bhaduatnagar, Maninagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380008 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agmpp1472D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S K Agal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2025 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 26.06.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 In The Matter Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S K Agal, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘the CIT(A)’), dated 26.06.2024 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 in the matter of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that in the course

Nileshkumar Kishorchandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 969/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande

Section 271(1)(c)

impugned order, the learned CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee thereby reducing the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs.3,49,497/-. 2. Today, the appellant has filed an application seeking to withdraw the appeal

Shri Narinder Singh, Ropar vs. ITO, W-2(2), Ropar

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1475/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

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

Chandigarh dt. 06/08/2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11 wherein the assessee has challenged the sustenance of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,56,500/-. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section

Kaleem M. Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(2), Navi Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA 3484/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2010-11 Mr. Kaleem M. Khan Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-701, Ghanashyam Bhawan, Ward-22(3)(2), Mumbai. Plot No. 10, Sector – 3, (Respondent) Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai 400 701. Pan : Apspk7646H (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande

Section 271(1)(c)

RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT : By this appeal, the assessee is challenging the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below, confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) purportedly on the ground, that the appellant-assessee has furnished ‘inaccurate particulars

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Kamrudinbhai R. Makhani, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 154Section 271(1)(C)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM Beat

Mr. Chittaranjan Trimbak Gaikwad, Pune vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

said return and therefore, the return is 10 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 to be considered for the purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the L.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied on the income assessed over and above the income returned under section ... 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

Psb Constructions, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(5), Madurai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14,

ITA 2288/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2286, 2287 & 2288/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 P S B Constructions, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 356, 5Th Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(5), Gandhi Nagar (P.O.), K.K. Nagar, Madurai. Madurai 625 020. [Pan: Aaffp6937J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate & Shri S. Kumarasubramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But Identical Orders All Dated 30.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

271(1)(c) of the 4 I.T.A. Nos.2286, 2287 & 2288/Chny/24 Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of ₹.6,73,815/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c ... High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. P. Rojes [2013 31 taxmann.com 253 (Madras) and submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied based on the estimation of income and prayed to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c