“penalty u/s 271(1)(c)”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)2,277 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (9 SCC 589), cited in 200 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal

9 SCC 589 · 2009 · Supreme Court

200

citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarifies the scope of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that for its applicability, conditions stated in the provision must strictly exist, and making an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

221 ITR 110 · 1996 · High Court

146

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Prasanna Dugar v. CIT

70 Taxmann.com 175 · 2016 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied even if the assessee voluntarily discloses income after detection by the department or subsequent to a search, especially when the explanation provided is not bona fide or cannot be substantiated.

Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

135 Taxmann.com 244 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it shows non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer regarding the specific grounds for levying the penalty.

CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills

256 ITR 447 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions to income are made on the basis of estimation, rather than on concrete evidence of concealment. Deletion of such a penalty is upheld.

ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF

348 ITR 561 · 2012 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Section 271AAA penalty deletion can be based on the Apex Court's decision in ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF (2012) 348 ITR 561, particularly when there was no specific question put to the assessee about the manner of earning undisclosed income.

CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd.

41 Taxmann.com 280 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the income addition is made on an estimated basis without clinching material suggesting concealment or inaccurate particulars.

New Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

49 Taxmann.com 573 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The charge of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income may overlap. A taxpayer's conduct can be considered bonafide even if their submissions were rejected in the quantum appeal.

Judgments citing penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Manmohan Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-45(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8379/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 68

8380/Del/2019, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. It is contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,27,733/-. 2. It is contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the violation of principles of natural ... that the CIT(A) has not appreciated the reasonable cause and the complete absence of mens rea while confirming the levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c). 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.” 12. As I have

Deepak Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2053/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Delhi { in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} for the Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. Commissioner confirmed the order of Ld. A.O levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (in short ‘the Act’ ) . 2 2. In this case the original e-return was filed by the Assessee

Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 417/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 417/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma बिधम/ Ito-29(2)(4) Room No.205, C-10, 2Nd 1501, B Wing, Tower-1, Vs. Vikas Paradise, Lbs Marg, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mulund (W), Mumbai- Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. 400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aobps8089J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Ekta Dodhia Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A)-40 Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Learned Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Fact Of The Case In The Right Perspective.

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta DodhiaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 68

grounds of appeal." 3. The assessee has raised the following additional grounds: - “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not in accordance with ... assessee to be made aware as to which of the two is being put against him for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, so that the assessee can defend accordingly. It is in this background that one has to appreciate the preliminary plea

Ramjilal G Johar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 409/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ramjilal G. Johar Ito 19(3)(1) C/O M/S Arvind G. Shah Vs. Matru Mandir, 407 Lotus House, 33A Aayakar Karyalaya, New Marine Lines Nana Chowk, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 007

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Ahuja. Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

from assailing the penalty on merits, the assessee challenged the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was the claim of the assessee that though the A.O had initiated the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... hearing of the appeal, the ld. A.R assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that while for the A.O had in the body of the assessment order initiated

Trioka Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3298/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Trioka Estate Pvt Vs. Dcit – 2(3 Ltd.Citi Mall, 2Nd New Aayakar Bhavan, Link Road, Andheri (W), M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400053. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5759N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi. Ar Respondent By : Mr.V.Tripathi. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Of Rs. 1,51,47,401/- (Penalty Amount Shall Modify To The Extent Of Relief Granted By Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.Nitesh Joshi. ARFor Respondent: Mr.V.Tripathi. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 1,51,47,401/- (penalty amount shall modify to the extent of relief granted by Hon’ble ITAT in quantum ... proceedings and consequently the penalty order to be illegal and bad in law. 2. That the AO was not justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as he himself is not clear whether such penalty is levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate

S.G Asia Holding (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4901/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar ()And Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S S.G. Asia Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Cir-4(2), One Indiabulls Centre, 1102, 11Th Floor, Mumbai B-Wing, Tower 2, 841, Jupiter Mills, Vs. Senapatibapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaecs 2909 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr.Ajit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Ajit Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

Asia Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd. to the TPO as per the relevant provisions of the Act. The very basis of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) therefore does not sustain in the light of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the penalty does not survive

Jagbir Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 42(1), New Delhi

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6389/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 148Section 151

Less: Deduction u/s 54F = 19,94,938/- 42,89,119/- Therefore, I am satisfied that assessee has concealed his income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is being initiated on this issue by issuing a penalty notice. (Addition of Rs. 42,89,119/-)” 9. On appeal

Ranbir Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 42(1), New Delhi

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6387/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 148Section 151

Sri Amit Kumar Loya, Gulbarga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Belagavi

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

ITA 38/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M.K. Biju, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

bank deposits before the AO during the course of penalty proceedings. Accordingly, she contended that the AO was not justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld A.R relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

Smt. Ravinder Kaur Bhatia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7003/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Ravinder Kaur Bhatia, Income Tax Officer, Ward 308, Tulsiani Chamber, Nariman Point, Vs. 19(3)(2), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Agapb 8595 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Hariom Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur, DR

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

March 2013, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty of ₹15,00,000/-. 5.1 The assessee has filed appeal against the levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 05th March 2015 dismissed the appeal ... assesse for want of non-prosecution and also holding that the assessee has taken the grounds against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, but the order and notice of demand filed was u/s 271F of the Act pertaining to penalty of ₹5,000/-. 6. Heard both

Aesthetica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5133/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, Sr.DR

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

effect to the order of CIT(A), the Assessing Officer after providing the assessee an opportunity to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied for concealment of income, and considering the same, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty ... issued u/s 271(l)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed. ” Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck

Aesthetica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5132/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, Sr.DR

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

Delfab Global Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 6256/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

Appeal No. 264/15-16 of the Assessment Year 2012-13, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the order of the AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act 1961 („Act‟ for short). 2 2. None appeared for the Assessee. Though notices for hearingson dated

Gulshan Mercantile Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6679/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Gulshan Mercantile Urban Vs Acit Cooperative Bank Ltd. Circle-1 129-130C, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, Muzaffarnagar Uttar Pradesh Pan-Aaajg0808L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Adv Respondent By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2021

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 80P(2)(d)

Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld.CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs. 75100 out of Rs. 2,44,300/- imposed by the A.O.” 2 3. The only effective ground in this appeal ... also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27th February, 2018 imposed penalty u/s 271(1) (C) of the Act of Rs. 2,44,309/-. 5. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT

ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Hcp Petrochem Pvt. Ltd, (Merged With M/S I.P. India Pvt. Ltd. Now Known As Adhunik Technology Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13]

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

legs to stand. Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld.CIT(A)’s in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected. 3 5. In result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Above decision

Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6524/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6524/Del/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

6524/DEL/2017 [Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself could not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). It was essentially held that imposition of penalty for such types of disallowances is not the intendment of legislature. Thus, tested on the aforesaid ... judicial view, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is clearly not justified merely on account of disallowance. The action of AO is thus cancelled. 7. The disallowance out of legal and professional expenses Rs. 15,000/- is stated to be without any corroborative evidence warranting imposition of penalty. When

Satish Kumar Chugh (HUF), Delhi vs. ACIT, Panipat Circle, Panipat

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5358/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

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

order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in all the captioned appeals relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'] though the quantum may differ in all the captioned appeals

Satish Kumar Chugh (HUF), Delhi vs. ACIT, Panipat Circle, Panipat

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5357/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

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

Satish Kumar Chugh (HUF), Delhi vs. ACIT, Panipat Circle, Panipat

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5356/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

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

Mridu Hari Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1133/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Sr. DR

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

circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Of Rs. 6,96,223/- 3. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another.” 3. The roots