← 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)

Soni Somani Infrastructure, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Pune

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

ITA 2458/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2458/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Soni Somani Infrastructure, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Solapur. 560/31, South Sadar Bazar, Vinayak Nagar, Solapur- 413003. Pan : Abvfs4209B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shriniwas G. Bhutada Shri Vishnu D. Bhutada Revenue By : Smt. Sailee Dhole Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Based On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Act'), Against The Order Dated 27Th Aug 2025 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order') Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- Nfac

For Appellant: Shri Shriniwas G. BhutadaFor Respondent: Smt. Sailee Dhole
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That during the course of further examination of records and on legal advice, the appellant has noticed certain pure questions