“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)

Kishore Sewani, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(4), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 517/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 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

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

hearing of appeal. II. ITA No. 217/PAT/2025: 1. For that the ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in affirming imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,47,559/- 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing penalty without proper service

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 216/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Dustven Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1153/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ajith VFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

observed that no voluntary effort was made by the assessee to file the return or seek condonation. Hence, the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 39,01,600.00 being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded on account of concealment of income ... before detection amounted to concealment of income. Accordingly, the explanation was not accepted. Hence, the grounds of appeal were dismissed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was confirmed. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the ld. CIT(A), confirming penalty under

Income-Tax Officer-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vibgyor Texotech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4705/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)'] for assessment year 2009-10, in relation to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under ... facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to DLEETE the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) solely on the basis of limb, without examining the merits of the case." (iii) In the facts and in circumstances of the case

Farukh Kabir, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 47/ASR/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 47/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal, for inordinate delay u/s 249(3) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act has been imposed by the ld. ACIT, Ward-3(1), Srinagar, amounting to Rs.13,11,600/- on account of confirmation of fixed ... admit the same on account of inordinate delay of more than 3 (three years) in filing the appeal. The order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was passed on 22.09.2016 which was served on the appellant on 30.09.2016 and the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has been filed

Arun Namdev Keni, Taloja vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panvel

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

ITA 366/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.366/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Arun Namdev Keni, Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Panvel. At Pethali, Taloja, Panvel- 410208. Pan : Amgpk2155A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Adjudicating On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

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

record. In this regard, we find that the appeal involving the issue of quantum addition, on the basis of which impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was imposed, has already been set-aside by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case ... filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 8. Since the appeal against the quantum addition, on the basis of which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was imposed, has already been set-aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1637/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in erred in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), same may please be cancelled. 2. Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in levying penalty U/s.271 ... Counsel for the assessee filed an application requesting for admission of additional evidence the contents of which read as under: “The Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the assessee

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1636/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1635/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 1634/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Counsel for the assessee filed an application requesting for admission of additional evidence the contents of which read as under: “The Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the assessee

Kuldeep Kaur, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambala, Haryana

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/CHANDI/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR for Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

further explained that the assessee came to know about the conclusion of the appellate proceedings only when a notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was served on 01.02.2025. Immediately thereafter, steps were taken for filing the present appeal. 3. The Ld. DR strongly opposed

M/S Valco Industries Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT-CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CHANDI/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 125/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Valco Industries Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Sco 37, Sector 26, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv5195J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Monga, CA

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

lacs. The AO has passed the fresh assessment order on 30.03.2016 confirming the addition of Rs.50 lacs. Thereafter, he has levied a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.44,84,375/- and the CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the A.Y.2004-05 7 penalty by way of the impugned order

Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Darbhanga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.32/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Merged With Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank)……………....Appellant C/O Nirmal & Associates, Ca, Nepali Kothi, Opp Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan: Aafas8891R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Darbhanga..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Regional Rural Bank & Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction On Account Of Brought Forward Losses & Deductions U/S 80P Of The Act. The Deduction U/S 80P Was Withdrawn From The Statute W.E.F Asst Year 2007-08. Accordingly, In The Present Case Of The Assessee, Assessment Was Framed By Disallowing The Claim Of Brought Forward Losses & Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

that the penalty was bad in law and is barred by limitation due to the fact that due date for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 1st limb states that after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action ... that in the present case, the penalty order was passed on 27.09.2013 however as such the mandates of law of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it should be passed on or before 31.08.2013. Therefore, the penalty order is barred by limitation. Accordingly, we set aside

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

follows: “1. Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ITA Nos.533 to 535 & 536/SRT/2025/AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 & 2012-13 Moulimani Impex ... follows: “1. Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1 Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy, . Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 71/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Vs. Dcit, Limited, Dobiriyal Complex Gole Central Circle-1, Lucknow Market Mahanagar, Lucknow Pan: Aaccj0525G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 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)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.11.2024 Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 4.06.2019, Passed Under Section 271(1)(C). The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Both Law & Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Penalty Of 2,20,41,900/- Levied By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That: A. The Appellant Has Neither Concealed The Particulars Of Its Income Nor Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income; B. There Was No Failure On The Part Of The Appellant In Truly & Fully Disclosing All Material Facts C. Mere Disallowance Or Rejection Of The Claim Or Stand Taken By The Appellant Based On Reasonable Interpretation Of The Law Is Not Sufficient To Attract Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) 3. The Amount Of Penalty Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Invalid, Excessive & Unreasonable.”

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

rejection of the claim or stand taken by the appellant based on reasonable interpretation of the law is not sufficient to attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 3. The amount of penalty confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is invalid, excessive and unreasonable.” 1 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s Jupiter Tradelinks