← All Phrases

“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
49
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
45
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
30
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
28
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
27
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
24
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)

Fci Asia Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 6436/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sampoorn Anand Seth, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) contended inter alia that the AO has failed to record a valid satisfaction so as to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c); that there is no concealment of income by way of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee

Ram Singh Saini, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(5), Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6167/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 20/6/2014 has not given a specific charge for penalty. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as under which limb of Section 271(1)(c), the penalty is levied was not mentioned in the notice issued ... issued u/s 271(1)(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

Sukhdev Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7108/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7108/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sukhdev Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-66, Surya Nagar, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad, U.P.-201001 Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abbps0078E Assessee By : Divyansh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2021

For Appellant: Divyansh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

liable to be quashed. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the total amount of addition of Rs.1,90,18,000/- which includes amount of addition of Rs.43,25,300/- made ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as contemplated u/s 271(1

Plaza Partners, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6728/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6728/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Plaza Partners, Vs Acit, 301-303, Mercantile House, 15, Circle-52(1), K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffp2318B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

interest portion pertaining to personal use. We find that the ratio is applicable to disallowance but not to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 12. We have gone through the order of the Assessing Officer at para 6.6 which is as under: “Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ... therefore, hold that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealing true particulars of income as discussed above and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case.” 17. From the concurrent reading of all the paras mentioned above in the assessment order as well

Sampark Hotels (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1438/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

No.1438/Del./2017 Court and coordinate Bench of the Tribunal discussed in the preceding paras, we are of the considered view that initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of vague and ambiguous notice issued u/s 143 (2) of the Act is not sustainable

ACIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi vs. Victory Township Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6231/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

order of CIT(A) reveals that Revenue is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) wherein he directed the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reason for deleting the penalty by the CIT(A) was that before the CIT(A) it was submitted that

ACIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi vs. Victory Dewllings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6229/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

order of CIT(A) reveals that Revenue is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) wherein he directed the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reason for deleting the penalty by the CIT(A) was that before the CIT(A) it was submitted that

ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Victory Accommodation Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6227/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

order of CIT(A) reveals that Revenue is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) wherein he directed the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reason for deleting the penalty by the CIT(A) was that before the CIT(A) it was submitted that

ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Victory Structures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6225/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

order of CIT(A) reveals that Revenue is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) wherein he directed the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reason for deleting the penalty by the CIT(A) was that before the CIT(A) it was submitted that

Philip Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2012-13 Philip Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Circle – 2, Chamber No.206-207, Ghaziabad Ansal “Satyam”, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Pan : Aaecp 7625 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

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

prayed that penalty of Rs.69.63 lakhs sustained may kindly be quashed.” 5. Before us, Assessee is challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Before us, Learned AR submitted that in the assessment order no specific charge has been recorded by the AO as to whether ... heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that in the present case in the assessment order, the AO has not recorded any satisfaction

Om Prakash Rana (Individual), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-44(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 8025/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Priamvada Surolia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

directed against the different orders of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, Delhi dated 09.10.2018 for above assessment years, challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. I have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly the facts ... completed the assessment determining the income of the assessee from house property. The AO vide separate orders levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for willfully, knowingly and without any reasonable cause failed to file the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) vide separate orders confirm

Om Prakash Rana (Individual), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-44(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 8024/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Priamvada Surolia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

directed against the different orders of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, Delhi dated 09.10.2018 for above assessment years, challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. I have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly the facts ... completed the assessment determining the income of the assessee from house property. The AO vide separate orders levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for willfully, knowingly and without any reasonable cause failed to file the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) vide separate orders confirm

Om Prakash Rana (Individual), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-44(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 8023/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Priamvada Surolia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

directed against the different orders of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, Delhi dated 09.10.2018 for above assessment years, challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. I have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly the facts ... completed the assessment determining the income of the assessee from house property. The AO vide separate orders levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for willfully, knowingly and without any reasonable cause failed to file the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) vide separate orders confirm

Om Prakash Rana (Individual), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-44(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 8022/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Priamvada Surolia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

directed against the different orders of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, Delhi dated 09.10.2018 for above assessment years, challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. I have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly the facts ... completed the assessment determining the income of the assessee from house property. The AO vide separate orders levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for willfully, knowingly and without any reasonable cause failed to file the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) vide separate orders confirm

Om Prakash Rana (Individual), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-44(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 8021/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Priamvada Surolia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

directed against the different orders of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, Delhi dated 09.10.2018 for above assessment years, challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. I have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly the facts ... completed the assessment determining the income of the assessee from house property. The AO vide separate orders levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for willfully, knowingly and without any reasonable cause failed to file the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) vide separate orders confirm

Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5088/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 245CSection 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 ... dated 20/6/2014 has not given a specific charge for penalty. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as under which limb of Section 271(1)(c), the penalty is levied was not mentioned in the notice issued

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1391 / 2009HC Delhi09 Mar 2011
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

claiming the same as revenue expenditure. As such it is held that the AO was justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition of Rs.1,99,96,463/- by holding that the assessee has furnished in accurate particulars thereof. The penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c