← 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)

Kunal J. Luthara, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-24(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2122/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Hitesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh, Sr.AR
Section 271(1)(c)

impugned orders dated 29.10.2021 & 20.05.2022 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) one in quantum appeal and another in appeal challenging the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, that both the appeals have been dismissed being time barred after dismissing the application moved by the assessee for condontion

Kunal J. Luthara, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-24(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2121/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Hitesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh, Sr.AR
Section 271(1)(c)

impugned orders dated 29.10.2021 & 20.05.2022 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) one in quantum appeal and another in appeal challenging the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, that both the appeals have been dismissed being time barred after dismissing the application moved by the assessee for condontion

Karakal Varky Varghese, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office 30(2)(1), Bandra Kurla Complex

ITA 2417/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

grounds of appeal: 2. "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Ld. counsel for the 3. Assessee

Yogendraraj U. Singhvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.459/Srt/2023 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Hybrid Mode) Yogendra Raj U Singhvi, Income Tax Officer-2(3)(8) Cts, 95/4/B-3-4/590, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs Village Dindoshi, Surat-395001 Oberoi Garden City, Flat No. 3902, Floor C-Wing, Meter Exquisite, Mumbai. Pan : Anjps 9745 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessment the assessing officer worked out the disallowance of the impugned purchases at Rs. 2,98,97,701/-. The assessing officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) at the rate of 100% of tax sought to be evaded and worked out the penalty of Rs. 1 ... while considering the similar contentions of the parties on levy of penalty on similar estimated additions of similar purchase, deleted the similar penalty under section 271(1)(c) by taking view that no penalty is leviable on estimated additions. While deleting the similar penalty, we 4 Yogendraraj U Singhvi followed

Saimandeep Industries of India, Ghaziabad vs. AO-Ward-51(92), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1372/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

appeal. 5. We have carefully considered the rivals submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The controversy involves imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on disallowances carried out towards bogus purchases in the realm of estimations. We straightaway note that in order to attract penalty under

Manoj Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 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.” I.T.A.No.2412/Del/2023 10. It is also observed that by way of deeming provision the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18,42,000/- being the loan taken

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1322/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

confirming the penalty and rejecting the contention of the assessee that on an addition made on the basis of estimation no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1321/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

confirming the penalty and rejecting the contention of the assessee that on an addition made on the basis of estimation no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1320/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

confirming the penalty and rejecting the contention of the assessee that on an addition made on the basis of estimation no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1319/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

confirming the penalty and rejecting the contention of the assessee that on an addition made on the basis of estimation no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1318/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

confirming the penalty and rejecting the contention of the assessee that on an addition made on the basis of estimation no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD) Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1317/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

confirming the penalty and rejecting the contention of the assessee that on an addition made on the basis of estimation no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2287/DEL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

subject. The Ld. Counsel submits that from a reading of the Explanation 1 to Section 271(1) of the Act that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall not be imposed on a person who offer a bona fide I.T.A. Nos. 2285 TO 2287/Del/2023 explanation ... claim in the return which is not sustained cannot be amounted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there should be deliberation in filing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the NFAC erred in observing that the Appellant

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2286/DEL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

subject. The Ld. Counsel submits that from a reading of the Explanation 1 to Section 271(1) of the Act that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall not be imposed on a person who offer a bona fide I.T.A. Nos. 2285 TO 2287/Del/2023 explanation ... claim in the return which is not sustained cannot be amounted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there should be deliberation in filing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the NFAC erred in observing that the Appellant

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2285/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

subject. The Ld. Counsel submits that from a reading of the Explanation 1 to Section 271(1) of the Act that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall not be imposed on a person who offer a bona fide I.T.A. Nos. 2285 TO 2287/Del/2023 explanation ... claim in the return which is not sustained cannot be amounted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there should be deliberation in filing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the NFAC erred in observing that the Appellant

Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Patel, Adipur vs. DCIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Vs. The Dcit, Patel Gandhidham Circle, Venus Plaster Industries, Plot Gandhidham (Kutch) No.89, Ward-2B, Adipur (Kutch) Pan : Aaopp 4484 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” For Short] Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 5,04,500/- Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts As Also In Law In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.5,04,500/- Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Act On The Ad-Hoc Disclosure Of Rs.50,45,000/-. The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271Aab Of The Act Is Totally Unjustified On Facts As Also In Law, May Kindly Be Deleted.” 3. The Primary Argument Of The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Against The Levy Of Penalty Was That The Income Surrendered By The Assessee During

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

supra) has not been rendered in the context of levy of penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act, but on levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on income found during survey. The decision in the case of Sandeep Chandak (supra) addresses the aspect of penalty

Vikas Singhal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1480/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Vikas Singhal, Vs Ito, B-2323, 2Nd Floor, Dsidc Indl.Area, Ward-35(5), Narela, New Delhi-110040. New Delhi. Pan-Fcsps5487J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Pahuja, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2023

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C(2)

assessee for the purpose of assessment, but the same alone cannot be the basis to construe concealment for the purpose of imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c). 12. As such, having regard to all the facts of the case as discussed above, we are of the view that considered

Nisha Rungta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

notice u/s.148 of IT Act, 1961. 5.6. On basis of discussion above, I am in agreement with action of LJAO to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) by holding that penalty should be imposed not because of an act of omission is an offence but because ... wherein, the returned income of the assessee was accepted with no additions made. The AO, in the penalty proceedings, levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the premise that the assessee had not filed the original return of income, as per the provisions of Section

Omshanti Universal Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Mumbai

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

ITA 2336/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleomshanti Universal Private Limited V. Dcit – Central Circle – 8(4) 302, Raheja Xion Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Dr. B.A. Road, Byculla (E) Mumbai – 400027 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaco9434H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Mr. H.M. Bhatt

Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

please be deleted in view of the proviso under section 68 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the IT Act.” 3. At the outset, we observe that inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf

The Purshottam Farmers Co.Op Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd., Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 501/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) The Purshottam Farmers Co. Op D.C.I.T., Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Circle-2(3), Surat, Vs. Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Jahangirpura Gin, Jahangirpura, Majuragate, Surat, Rander, Surat, Gujarat-395009 Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaaat 3000 A Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 80P(2)(d)

presumed by the assessing officer. Even otherwise rejection of claim of deduction would not automatically allow the assessing officer to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the case of assessee is absolutely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court ... held that mere filing incorrect claim which is not allowed by the assessing officer, that by itself would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty. 10. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed. Order announced