“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)

Nitin Raj Marwah, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja PitaleFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35(1)(iii)

vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld Nitin Raj Marwah ITA no.2252/Mum./2023 the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted

M/S Shree Rajmoti Inds., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The A. C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 172/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(34)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

year by assessee and, therefore, it could not be said to have been already engaged in business of manufacturing He also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on ground of concealment of income - Tribunal reached to conclusion that merely because claim on merit was not granted, penalty could ... return declaring a total income - Assessing Officer noted that assessee made an incorrect claim of deduction under section 10B and levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c) - An erroneous claim simpliciter does not automatically attract a penalty and it is only when an erroneous claim is based

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 457/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.O., Amitkumar Mathuradas Kaneria, Ward-1(1)(3) 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Near Rajhans Vs. Surat. Cinema, Piplod, Surat. Pan No. Adppk 7315 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer, after passing the order giving effect has further initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, the earlier penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act would not otherwise survive ... submission of ld. AR of the assessee that the addition on the basis of which the Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) has been restored back to the file of Assessing Officer in assessee’s appeal against the addition in quantum addition

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sagar

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

ITA 155/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, 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 mad is not accepted ... reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the levy of penalty is perverse unjustified and uncalled for.” 2 | P a g e J.P.Tobacco Product Pvt.Ltd

Meena Ramkrishna Chavan, Vashi vs. ACIT-28(2), Vashi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1828/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act and added the same in the income of the Assessee and also initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income AND furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, by passing Assessment order dated 02.03.2016 under section

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7493/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made no adjustment in respect of non AE expenditure. He initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the adjustment made by the TPO. 3.1 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that ... incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting 7 ITA NO.7493/MUM/2014 (A.Y.2005-06) 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

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7492/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 271(1)(c)

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1262/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1261/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1260/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1259/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1258/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1257/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

Western Drilling Contractors Private Ltd., U.P vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Noida

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

ITA 184/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K M Gupta, Adv. and Ms. Shruti Khimta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

1,38,25.302 incurred directly and exclusively towards earning aforesaid interest income. 5. That the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal taken are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or vary

Van Oord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 792/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(14)Section 271(1)(c)

under the Tonnage Tax Scheme (Grounds 2 – 11)  Addition on account of allocation of head office expenses (Grounds 12- 16)  Initiation o penalty under section 271(1)(c) (Ground 17) Applicability of transfer pricing provisions to companies covered under the Tonnage Tax Scheme (Grounds 2 – 11) 3. The assessee ... delete the adjustment made towards the qualifying activities under TTS only. 6 ITA 792/Mum/2014 Van Oord India Pvt Ltd Initiation o penalty under section 271(1)(c) (Ground 17) 11. Issue with regard to initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is premature at this stage hence dismissed. Rate

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3492/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3Section 94(7)

invited our attention to the penalty notice, dated 29/12/2004, issued under Section 274 of the Act and submitted that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of Full Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

Smt. Jaya Mogra, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

there were any details supplied by the assessee, which were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, it would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As regards the above argument of the assessee, it is relevant to note that estimate of such income

M/S. J.K. Jewellers, Bharuch vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Bharuch

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 443/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.440/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Bharuch. Station Road, Near Rungta School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.443/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, Station Road, Near Rungta Bharuch. School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

argued by the ld Counsel therefore does not require adjudication. 37. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is premature in nature, hence does not require adjudication. 38. Now, we shall take ground No.3 raised

The ACIT, Circle-1, Bharuch vs. M/S. J.K. Jewellers, Bharuch

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 440/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

ITO -34(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Manoj Dineshchandra Chitaliya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1494/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

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

positive concealment had been detected by the Department and the addition was made in his income only on estimate basis, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed because the assessee's income on estimate basis keeping in view his household expenses as well ... question was, in fact, more than the income returned by him and that estimated additions in the returned income do not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c)of the Act. The Revenue went up in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was allowed by order dated