“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)

Shish Pali, Noida vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Noida

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3400/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Noida, for the assessment year 2009-10. While ITA No. 3399/Del/2019 arises out of quantum proceedings, ITA No.3400/Del/2019 is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short ‘the Act’). ITA No.3399 & 3400/Del/2019 AY: 2009-10 2. The assessee has raised

Shish Pali, Noida vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Noida

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3399/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Mahaonline Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Commissioner of Incometax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish KantFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

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

claimed the expenditure, which claim was not excepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself, would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Unless there is a finding that any details supplied by the as- sessee in its return of income were ... found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there is no question of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c). 4. If the contentions of the Revenue are accepted, then in case of every return where claim is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will

Bhag Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(1), Mohali

ITA 756/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Dhall, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 576

755/Chd/2023 relates to liability of the assessee from the point of view of tax whereas Appeal in ITA No. 756/Chd/2023 relates to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Since the issues involved in both the above appeals are common and were heard together

Bhag Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(5, Mohali

ITA 755/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Dhall, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 576

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Shakuntlam Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 697/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Vinod Gugnani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3764/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and sustained the other disallowances made by Assessing Officer.

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

271(1)(c) of the Act. 3) That the Learned National Faceless Appeal Center has grossly erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by equating the addition/ disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of excess claim of construction/ improvement and claim of prior ... Center has grossly erred in quoting out of context the selective portions of observations from various judgments to justify the levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, the ratio of which judgements is not applicable in view of the facts of those cases being not parametria

System A D Solution India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1337/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Baburao Karpe

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

source for the relevant assessment year while determining the amount of tax sought to be evaded for determining the quantum of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our view, as per the Clause (a) read with Clause (c) of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1 ... assessment year. 6.2. In terms of the paragraph 6 and 6.1 above, the Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the amount penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed. ITA No. 1339/MUM/2024 (Assessment

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 153C following search, which income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a case it was unnecessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). 3. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court ... levy of penalty. 5. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Uttamchand Hastimal Jain, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1and 2, Tps, Vijayapur

ITA 567/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavuttamchand Hastimal Jain The Income Tax Officer Prop. Of Sumatinath Traders Ward - 1 & 2 (Tps) Kirana Bazar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Vijayapura 586101 Near All India Raido Pan – Addpj2783P Athani Road, Vijayapura 586104 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061137028(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 19.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-05. 2. Facts Leading To The Filing Of Present Appeal Are, The Assessee Is An Individual Running A Kirana Shop In Vijayapura, Karnataka. For The Impugned Assessment Year He Has Filed His Return Of Income(Roi) Declaring An Income Of Rs 4,72,780/- On 31.10.2014. Thereafter, An Information, Revealing That Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs. 3,10,13,708/- In Its Bank Account With Shri Gurubasava Urban Credit Souharda Co-Op. Ltd, Surfaced With Department. Accordingly The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 2 Uttamchand Hastimal Jain 148 Of The Vide Notice Dated 31.03.2021. In Response To The 148 Notice The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Declaring An Income Of Rs 21,68,535/-. While Concluding The Assessment The Ao Accepted The Revised Computation Without Any Demur. However, The Ao Simultaneously, Initiated Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Alleging That Assessee Has Concealed His Income. Afterwards, The Ao Vide Its Order Dated 26.09.2022, Levied Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Aggrieved with the order of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the Ld CIT(A) and contended that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable as the AO has ultimately accepted the revised computation filed by assessee. Counsel of the assessee further pointed out that the additional ... income has been offered for taxation purely on estimate basis, and hence penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. However, the learned CIT(A) could not find force in the arguments of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 4. Aggrieved with the order

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 284/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

Income. Interest under section 234B 30. erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act of INR 59,140,659. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 31. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant

Alfiya Ayazali Sayyad, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

made. He further submitted that when the sales made by the assessee are accepted, the purchases cannot be doubted and hence penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be liveable. 8. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard ... cannot be doubted and on this basis addition cannot be made. In our opinion, it is not a fit case to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and consequently the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is hereby quashed

Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 464/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.464/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Anjappar Chettinad A/C Dcit Restaurant Central Circle-1(3) बनाम/ #7/2, J.P.Towers, Chennai Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifa-0590-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkata Raman (Cas)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkata RamanFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 108/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

assessee for the year under consideration, as the assessee failed to file his return of income. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) stated in his order

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 107/NAG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 106/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

Naresh Vasantraj Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 105/NAG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

Srk Dev Build Pvt Ltd., Indore vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 471/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

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