“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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

from the grounds of appeal that the issue raised in all these bunch of appeal are identical relating to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and we have heard these cases together with the consent of the parties and have decided to dispose these appeals by common order ... this way also the case of the assessee falls in the category of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income for an amount of Rs. 1,34,14,976/-. 5. Aggrieved by the above order

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

Ashok Gurunath Patil, Latur vs. ITO Ward1(1), Latur

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

ITA 594/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.594/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Ashok Gurunath Patil, Ito, Ward 1(1), Latur A/P Masobavadi, Khed, Nilanga, Latur-413522 Vs. Maharashtra Pan-Bihpp0618K अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Pratik Sandbhor Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 24-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06-10-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.08.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 27.02.2018. 2. Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 123 Days In Filing Of The Appeal. Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Has Been Filed & Placed At Page No. 24-26 Of The Appeal Citing The Main Reason For The Delay, That The Assessee Was Not Aware Of Passing Of The Impugned Order As 2 The Tax Consultant Registered The E-Mail Id Of His Younger Son & The E-Mail Account Was Not In Use. After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative (Dr) & Perusing The Records We Find That The Sufficient Cause Prevented The Assessee From Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit & The Delay Is Not Intentional. Therefore In The Larger Interest Of Justice & Also Placing Reliance On The Judgement Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Master Katiji & Others(1987) 167 Itr 471(Sc) (Supreme Court) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Dated 21.03.2025 (2025) Insc 382) We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 123 Days & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without taking cognizance of the fact that the appellant did not offer the interest on enhanced compensation ... circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without taking cognizance of the fact that the issue of taxability 3 of interest on enhanced compensation

Acc India Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 4907/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaacit, Circle 1(1), Vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, Room No. 159-A, C.R. Building, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi -19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 72/Del/2023 (Ita No. 650/Del/2020) (Ay 2015-16) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Assesseeby : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

allowable and we order accordingly. 24. Coming to assessee’s appeal ITA No. 4907/Del/2024, it is noted that the AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and confirmed by CIT(A) holding the assessee guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the time of amortization ... while adjudicating assessee’s Cross Objection in CO No. 72/Del/2023, as above, we have already deleted these two additions and hence the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not survive. Accordingly penalty is deleted. 26. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 650/Del/2020 is dismissed

B & B Sharecom Pvt Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, Circle, Hisar

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

ITA 2877/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanb & B Sharecom Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle, 133, 1St Floor, Parijat Complex, Hisar. Hisar – 125 001. (Pan :Aagcb1363A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V Rajakumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Deavel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.09.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Deavel, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 143(2)Section 271Section 43(5)Section 68

with law. Accordingly, Ground Nos.C & D raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 23. Ground No.E is regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is consequential in nature, hence not adjudicated. 24. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 650/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Arp Securities Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1), Indore

ITA 218/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Arp Securities Limited, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 150/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

basis with the directions as aforesaid. 5.2 In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 5.3 ITA No.218/Ind/2025 (penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act) Since the facts and circumstances are almost identical and similar this appeal too was heard simultaneously and disposed

Allied Construction Company, Malad vs. Income Tax Officer - 30 (1) (1), Bandra

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

ITA 4121/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Allied Construction Ito-30(1)(1), Company, C-13, 5Th Floor, 4&5, Sai Zarukha Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B.J. Patel Road, Bandra East, Malad (West), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. Pan : Aapfa8255N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jose Pulikkoden Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jose PulikkodenFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

stating that no reply has been filed when the Appellant had already filed a reply dated 07.10.2016 objecting to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty of ₹1,08,45,900/-under ... erred in not appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO has not decided as to whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is for concealment or for filing inaccurate particulars of Income as can be seen from para 6 of the Penalty order

Krishna Enterprises, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 34(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5654/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Krishna Enterprises, Assistant Commissioner Of 202, Bhagirathi Apartment, Income Tax, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi- Vs Circle 34(1), 110085. Delhi. Pan- Aahfk4892P Assessee Revenue

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

above quoted decisions are not applicable to the instant case of the appellant because these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is levied depending upon the merits of the quantum additions made in the assessment order with specific emphasis

Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

following grounds ; 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in directing the AO to compute the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs. 6,37,200/- confirmed by him in quantum proceedings. 2. The appellant craves to alter

Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

following grounds ; 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in directing the AO to compute the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.6,37,200/- confirmed by him in quantum proceedings. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend

ITO Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhupesh Sevantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4772/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.P. Jayaram (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. A/R

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

ACIT vs. M/s.Fancy Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.5384/Mum/2019, held that in case where an addition is based on estimate basis, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. 5. Before us, the ld. D/R vehemently argued that 7.5% has been confirmed on account of the alleged ... impugned additions. In our considered opinion, when the authorities below are estimating the profit without bringing any cogent material evidence on record, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty which calls

Dodhia Filaments Private Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 795/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

circumstances of the assessee’s case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. Now we would deal with specific facts of the case pertaining

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 2189/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

DCIT, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi

ITA 2106/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Ss Group (P) Ltd, Haryana vs. ACIT Cirlce-4(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

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

ITA 1094/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/S. Ss Group (P) Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 4 (1), Ss House, Plot No.77, Sector 44, Gurgaon. Sector 45, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aadcr8945B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 07.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Affirming The Penalty Order Dated 21.03.2022 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR

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

u/s 40A(3) of the Act cannot be charged with having concealed for furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pricewaterhousecoopers ... section. 15. The assessee we hold ,cannot be charged with having concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Law in this regard is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pricewaterhousecoopers

Trustar Diamonds, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3), Lalbaug

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 868/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankartrustar Diamonds V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Ec 3070, Bharat Diamond बनाम Income Tax– 19(3), 5Th Floor, Bourse, Bkc, Mumbai – Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 400051, Maharashtra Mumbai–400012, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafft7349N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Krupali Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr.AR)

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Appeal) has erred in law and in facts in not mentioning the limb under which he is initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and hence it is bad in law and void ab initio. 2. The Hon’ble CIT(Appeal) erred in law and in facts to levy penalty u/s ... fact that the additions were made on mere estimations and presumptions and ignoring the decisions of Jurisdictional of ITAT on levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 3. The Hon’ble CIT(Appeal) erred in law and in facts in not considering case laws of Jurisdictional Mumbai Income Tax Appellant

Sumatinath Builders, Nallasopara vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Thane

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

ITA 4685/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantms Suchitra Kamblesumatinath Builders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Shop No.1, Of Income Tax, Jay Vijay Nagari-1, Circle-4, Virar Link Road, Thane. Nallasopara, Vasai-Virar Dist. Thane-401209. Maharashtra. [Pan :Abdfs6440 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By: Ms Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43CSection 68

therefore the action of the Id AO in re-computing the said income and initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) thereon as confirmed by the Hon. CIT(A) is not justified and bears to be deleted. 4. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.79

Kishore Sewani, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 248/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Kishore Sewani, Ito-1(4) बनाम/ House No.33, Parika Bhopal Vs. Society, Phase-1, Chunabhatti, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Ankps8260M Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

accordingly. ITA No. 248/Ind/2025 – Penalty-Appeal: Page 7 of 8 Kishore Sevani ITA Nos.517/Ind/2024 & ITANo.248/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14 9. This appeal involves penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which is dependent on outcome of Quantum-Appeal. Since we have already remanded Quantum- Appeal to CIT(A), this matter is also remanded