“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)

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Man Industries (India) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 618/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal

Section 143(3)Section 68

issue a show cause notice dated 12.07.2022 to the Man Industries (I) Ltd. ITA Nos. 617, 618 assessee asking as why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... overall facts of the case, I hold that the 7.3 Considering the overall facts of the case, I hold that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained in this case as the cannot be sustained in this case as the penalty is calculated

DCIT CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. Man Industries (I) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 617/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal

Section 143(3)Section 68

High Range Foods Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2014-15 High Range Foods Private Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1) Limited, Kochi 28/3030, Vs. Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthra, Ernakulam-682020 Pan : Aaach6076L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca For Revenue : Smt. Leena Lal (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 4

Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue is not justifiable, and accordingly the same is deleted. 8. The last issue that arises for our consideration pertains

Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 636/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that mere addition / disallowance does not warrant the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should be deleted ... been levied on these additions. It has been held in various decisions that mere addition or disallowance does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find an identical issue had come up before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case

Smt Anjali Praphull Shivale, Pune vs. ACIT Circle2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1583/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: S/Shri B.C. Malakar and Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

have already restored the quantum addition to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is also restored to his file for fresh adjudication after completion of the assessment. We hold and direct accordingly

Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale, Pune vs. Central Circle 2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1582/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri B.C. Malakar and Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale, Pune vs. Central Circle 2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1581/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri B.C. Malakar and Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale, Pune vs. Central Circle 2(4), Pune

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

ITA 1577/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: S/Shri B.C. Malakar and Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale, Pune vs. Central Circle 2(4), Pune

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

ITA 1038/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: S/Shri B.C. Malakar and Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Trustar Diamond, Bandra East vs. Ward 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the

ITA 1542/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

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

basis of which the penalty was imposed. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeal) erred in law and in facts in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2009-10, ignoring the fact that the additions were made for AY 2013-14 on mere estimations ... presumptions. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the decisions of Hon'ble 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 Incomте Тах Appellant Tribunal

Fun N Food Restaurant, Thane vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Thane

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

ITA 6856/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Subsequently, the penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act, which resulted into levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act, to the tune of Rs.57,23,766/- @ 200% of the income escaped/total additions of Rs.77,50,405/- (Rs.64,52,870/- + Rs.12

Sh.Pawan Anand, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Sh. Pawan Anand, Income Tax Officer, 43, Dhamawala Bazaar, Vs. Ward 1(1)(2), 13-A, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Agqpa0214J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

particulars of income. The assessee here neither concealed his income nor the particulars of such income so as to 2 attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c

Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralcircle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 88/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 1,27,663/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation ... return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and was accordingly imposed. 5. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed that the AO in the show cause notice

M/S. Simero Vitrified P. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot

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

ITA 276/RJT/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 68

must be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 and added back to the assessee's total income. Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is initiated on these amounts for concealment of income. ii) Fresh unsecured loans accepted of Rs. 14,41,45,054/- (squared ... must_be_treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 and added back to the assessee's total income. Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is initiated on these amounts for concealment of income. iii) Since the data relating additional creditors was not available on online record and assessee fails to prove

Diesh Kumar Goyal, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kota

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

ITA 32/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

Officer's order of assessment, who partly allowed the appeal. I did not contest it further. 3. That the AO thereafter, imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the additions sustained by the Ld.CIT(A). 4. The appeal against the penalty order was preferred by the assessee which was confirmed ... part of the assessee in not substantiating his claim is also available on record. The AO, while passing the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, has not considered the available explanation of the assessee 11 ITA No. 32/JPR/2025 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Kota and whether

Shri Shamrao Shripati Patil, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Kolhapur

ITA 1420/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

sale deed executed a confirmation deed on 20th May 2010. 3] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or delete and of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. There

Sandeep Kaur Gill, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 237/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

raised by the assessee are extracted as under: 1. The Assessing Officer erred in law as well as in fact while imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act amounting to Rs.3,17,452/- against the assessee by holding that the assessee had concealed his income and has furnished ... initiated, but during the penalty proceedings, there was no appropriate response by the assessee qua the issue of penalty, therefore, a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 29.05.2018 for Rs.3,17,452/- was imposed. Against the impugned penalty order the assessee preferred an appeal before

Shri Becharbhai Dharamshibhai Vasoya, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 125/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mehta, AR

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

complied. 5. That, my representative became aware of the order under section 250 of CIT(A) when the show cause notice for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) dated 07.01.2025 received from the Assessing Officer. 6. That due to above reasons, there is delay in filing of ITAT appeal. 7. That

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1905/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1.1 Aforesaid appeals by assessee assails levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 and 2014-15. Facts leading to impugned penalty are quite identical in both the years. First, we take up appeal

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1904/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A