← 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)

Income Tax Officer, Race Course Road vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Arts College Road, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 2370/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2366, 2367 & 2370 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, No.78, Cheran Towers, Government Arts College Road, Coimbatore Tamil Nadu-641018 [Pan: Aaccc5150] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Appeals Vide Ita No.2366/Chny/2024 For Ay 2015-16 Vide Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066850730(1) Dated 19.07.2024 & Ita No.2367/Chny/2024 For Ay 2015-16 Vide No.Itba / Nfac / S / 250 /2024-25/1066924539(1) Dated 23.07.2024 & Vide Ita No.2370/Chny/2024 For Ay 2017-18 & Vide Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066850925 Dated 19.07.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi. Through The Aforesaid Appeal :- 2 -:

Section 147Section 250Section 5

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

M.P.Recycling Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4205/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M. P. Recycling Company Private Asst. Cit, Central Circle 4(2)(1) Mumbai-400 020 Limited Vs. 51-53/A, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aadcm 3153 A (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None : Shri R. R. Makwana Respondent By : 17.10.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. As There Was No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee, We Hereby Dispose Of This Appeal By Hearing The Learned Departmental Representative ('Ld.Dr' For Short) & On Perusal Of The Materials Available On Record. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) At The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer) In Levying The Impugned Penalty Of Rs 2,65,12,070 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 17.10.2024
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ought not to have levied the impugned penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act inasmuch as he has not appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety. The appellants further, contend that