“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)

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1121/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

1121/Ahd/2025 to ITA No. 1125/Ahd/2025 Axis Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT, A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2015-16 3 1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of lease operating expenses (Tax effect ... Taxman 322) (SC), that merely because the claim of the assessee was rejected by the revenue, that by itself could not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee had furnished plausible explanation for the claim as made by it and the said explanation

Onus Plantations and Agro Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5004/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 127(2)(a)Section 127(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 68Section 69C

Revenue, the Tribunal had reversed the order, holding that the failure to obtain the previous permission from the IAC for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c)was only a procedural error and it not fatal to the order of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble High

Atma Ram Builders Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3593/DEL/2025[A.Y. 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269TSection 270ASection 271ESection 69ASection 80G

proceedings under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing

Tahir Khan, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3)(1), Jhansi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 468/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 56(2)(vii)

under section 56(2)(vii) of the 'Act' being on account of deeming fiction cannot be a valid foundation for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the 'Act, as such addition is purely notional and involves no element of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 7. BECAUSE ... erred in sustaining penalty even on ad hoc disallowances of Rs.39,779/- and Rs.50,000/-, which being estimated disallowances cannot invite penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the 'Act' as per settled judicial position. 4 | P a g e 10. BECAUSE, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy

Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circl24(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed

ITA 5304/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 271(1)(c)

argued that the issue of default revenue expenditure is a debatable issue and that the same therefore would not attract invocation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Upon consideration of the matter, we find merit in the arguments of the appellant assessee ... particulars of income on the part of the assessee are not available in the present case so as to attract imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the orders of lower authorities is set- aside and the penalty under section 271(1)(c

Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 24(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed

ITA 5303/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 271(1)(c)

Prime Products Limited, Kanpur vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 514/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Prime Products Ltd., 87/8, Kalpi Vs. The Dy. Cit, Road, Kanpur Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur Pan: Aaacp8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer On 23.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Upholding Action Of Learned Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 94,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That On The Facts & In Law, The Notice Issued For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Dated 14/02/2020 Is Vague & Defective Since, It Does Not Specify The Limb Under Which Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Was Initiated. 4 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Offered An Explanation. The Penalty Proceedings & The Consequent Order Are Invalid & Void Ab Initio As The Same Were Initiated & Levied Solely On The Basis Of An Affidavit Without Independent Evidence Of Concealment.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied by the ld. Assessing Officer on 23.01.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1 ... UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) DATED 14/02/2020 IS VAGUE AND DEFECTIVE SINCE, IT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE LIMB UNDER WHICH PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS INITIATED. 4 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) NFAC HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT

Vijay Balbhim Pise, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Solapur

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

ITA 195/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.195/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vijay Balbhim Pise, Vs Ito Ward 1(2), 110, Railway Lines, Solapur- Solapur 413001 Maharashtra Pan-Ajgpp4660A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Soni (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

inconsistent jurisdiction over this case in assessment which is not as per the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of income which was based on the additions made on the basis of estimation

Damyanti Atul Shah, King Circle vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1) Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 5891/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ryan Saldhana,ARFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Reliable Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Thane

ITA 4812/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the Learned CIT(A). However, the

For Appellant: Ms. Sakina AmreliwalaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Order, dated 10/12/2019, in respect of quantum additions made for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The present appeal pertains to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act pursuant to the additions made by the Assessing Officer vide the aforesaid Assessment Order, dated 10/12/2019 for the Assessment ... deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned Order, dated 28/05/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the applications seeking condonation of delay and the appeal afresh

Reliable Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the Assessee is allowed and all the other

ITA 4811/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Sakina AmreliwalaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Ganesh Ram Dokania, Banka vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Years: 2014-15 Ganesh Ram Dokania………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Dokania Market, Aliganj, Bihar-813102.. [Pan: Aadfg1795P] Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Patna…….………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Real Estate Business & The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 15.11.2016 In Response To Notice U/S 153A Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,56,350/-. Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & Subsequently, Assessment U/S. 153A/144 Was Completed At A Total Income Of Rs.25,67,79,232/- Wherein The Assessing Officer Imposed Penalty U/S. 271Aab Of The Act At Rs. 1,60,00,000/- On Undisclosed Income.

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section ... Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section

Nagaiah Kekkireni, Suryapet vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 932/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal has been admitted on the said aspect. 12. We find that the aforesaid issue, i.e., as to whether or not the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed with respect to an addition, which has been assailed before the Hon’ble High Court ... issue with respect to the 10 ITA 932/Hyd/2025 Nagaiah Kekkireni vs. ITO addition of Rs. 42.84 lakhs (supra), regarding which the impugned penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had been imposed by the AO and thereafter sustained by the CIT(A) has been admitted

Jamnaben Parshottamdas Patel, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward(1), Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1801/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

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

grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in facts by confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c), despite full disclosure of income in the return and during assessment proceedings. There was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars; hence

Raees Alam Siddiqui, Ghazipur vs. Dy. C.I.T., Range - 1, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR

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

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) that was levied upon the assessee vide the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer dated 25.01.2022. The grounds of appeal ... Siddiqui A.Y. 2015-16 there was no allegation by the Revenue that the assessee had concealed any income in his return, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed simply on account of addition made by the ld. AO on application of a higher rate of profit

Pallavi Kamal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6317/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Pallavi Kamal Shah Ito, Ward-30(1)(1), Mumbai A-601, Bhimsen Chs Ltd., Marve Vs Maharashtra-400051. Road, Malad West, Maharashtra - 400064. [Pan: Avops7447Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 124Section 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xiv)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

crore on account of unexplained share trading and added under section 69A. The assessing officer initiated penalty under section 271F, penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income as well as penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non- compliance of various notices. 3. Aggrieved by the additions

Gaddam Mohan Reddy, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nizamabad

ITA 1685/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

PCIT in the course of the proceedings under section 263 of the Act, therefore, he ought not to have been visited with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income for the aforesaid inadvertent error. The Ld. AR to support his contention had relied ... bona fide and an inadvertent error, and not a case of intended concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified. 21. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Mubmai

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

ITA 6878/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

quantum proceedings was on an adhoc/estimated basis at 8% of alleged bogus purchases, which cannot be the basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 6877/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6875/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C