“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)

ACIT, Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. Chandrapur Distt. Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Chandrapur

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

ITA 399/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

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

levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.” 6. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of ` 39,07,11,248, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first ... 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. M/S Chandrapur District Central Co-Oprative Bank Limted, Chandrapur

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

ITA 241/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

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

Amit Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. section 271B of the Act nowhere requires that unlike the penalty under section 271(1)(c) which has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding, the penalty under section 271B also has to be initiated in the course ... followed by notices under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 and after considering assessee’s submissions, the assessing officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) but on appeal, the Tribunal cancelled penalty on the ground that the show cause notice under section 274 was defective

Amit Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

Jamna Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 540/JPR/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

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 ... Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature….” xiii. Attention is drawn towards the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Baroda Tin Works

Nirmal Narendrakumar Kotecha, Mumbai vs. Int. Tax, Ward-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in terms of paragraph 24 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4592/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

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

Assessee were dismissed. After taking into consideration the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, the CIT(A) had restricted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act to INR 32,50,882/-. It was submitted that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the 5 Assessment ... inapplicable part. Thus, the statutory notices issued to the Appellant do not inform the Appellant about the charge against the Appellant – whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is sought to be levied for 6 Assessment Year: 2009-10 concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate

Sri. Gandhinagara Narayana Harikrishna Rai, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1314/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Gandhinagara Narayana Harikrishna Rai, Vs. Ito, No.3907, Panchavati, 12Th Main, Ward – 5(3)(2), Kumarswamy Layout, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Abjph 8664 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)

advice of his tax consultant who advised to accept the Assessment Order. Accordingly assessee did not pursue the appeal. Thereafter, the penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act was imposed on the assessee on 17.02.2022 and appeal from the penalty order was dismissed and penalty amounting to Rs.4 ... prosecution should not be initiated. On receipt of the prosecution notice, assessee filed an appeal as against the order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act before the FAA with a delay of 8 to 9 years. The Hon’ble High Court on facts of the said

Swaminarayan Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1411/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1411/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Acit बना 1, Ashok Chambers Circle-3(1) Opp. Pathak Gate Police Station Ahmedabad म/ Madanzampa Road V/S. Vadodara 390 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaas 1932 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) …… "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Kanabar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 9/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 08/07/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 27/02/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kanabar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35A

accepted or were not acceptable to the revenue, that itself does not attract the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. No penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when all necessary facts were disclosed and there is no concealment. 3. Notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 964/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Tax, Vs. 29-33, Ancillary Industrial Central Circle – 7(1), Plots, Near M Ward, Mumbai Govandi, Mumbai – 400 043 (Pan : Aaacm3635Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, Ca Revenue : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR

Section 10BSection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as according to the Court, the word "inaccurate" signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee ... Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) was overruled. 10 Maneesh Pharmaceuticals

Shree Gunatit Jyot Mahila Trust, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward - Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 326/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Shree Gunatit Jyot Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Mahila Trust Ward, Exemption Vs. Post Box No.23, Pappaji Vadodara Marg, Vallabh Vidhyanagar, Anand, Gujarat, 388120 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaats8722P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2024 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 12.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Registered Under The Bombay Public Trust Act And

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)

evasion of income either in the current year or in future years. Therefore, the AO was not correct in imposing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the act. The mistake on the part of the assessee was a bona-fide mistake, which ultimately had no impact

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Faiz Zakir Vali, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 231/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veen AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 271(1)(c)

however, the sole issue raised in this appeal is, whether or not the the learned CIT(A) were justified in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for ` 1,04,13,300. 3. Having heard both the parties, we find that

Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3173/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshul

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

applicants. Finally on the basis of the High Court order whereby and whereunder the addition made by the AO has been confirmed, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.46,85,932/- has been imposed upon the assessee. 7. Before ... proceedings are separate proceedings but the material gathered during the course of assessment proceedings is quite relevant for deciding the issue of penalty under section 271(1)(c). Even during the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee has not made any effort to lead any evidence than what was adduced

Turimella Vasu Babu, Adoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 644/HYD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 643/Hyd/2024 & 644/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Adv.Manjula, appeared for Adv.Shaik Jeelani BashaFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

delay is condoned. I have perused the order of the learned CIT(A) in the appeal of the assessee against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Learned CIT(A) dismissed this appeal for non-prosecution by the assessee by applying the ratio in the case ... restored to the file of the learned CIT(A), the order of learned CIT(A) in the appeal against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also set aside and the same is restored to the file of the learned

Turimella Vasu Babu, Adoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 643/HYD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 643/Hyd/2024 & 644/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Adv.Manjula, appeared for Adv.Shaik Jeelani BashaFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Rohit Chatterji, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA

ITA 2707/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty by holding that – “8. The submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. It is observed that the Assessing Officer levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of addition of incomes, which were not offered to tax in the original return ... prescribed by the statute" 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not justified and accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied. 15. In the result, the appeal in ITA.No

Rohit Chatterji, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, 35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA

ITA 2706/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 218/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

case of CIT vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta), the High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed ... assessee submitted that it is a settled law that penalty under Section 271AAA only can be imposed in “search year” and not penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on several judicial precedents on this issue. Accordingly, it was submitted

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 217/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 216/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 215/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha