“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)

Kakoli Ganguly, Legal Heir of Haradhan Halder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.314/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kakoli Ganguly, Legal Heir Of Haradhan Halder.…………… ….……….Appellant 33, Banamanli Naskar Road, Kolkata – 700060. [Pan: Adypg8773F] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata……………....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gaurav Mathur, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 25.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee thereby increasing the assessed income of the assessee at Rs.16,69,230/- and doing so, the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However

Som Nath Virmani and Sons HUF, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

initio. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 2,10,000/- which is not leviable 6. In the case of the assessee, the assessment u/ 143(3) read with Section ... Further, as per Explanation 4(c), when the assessee has already paid self-assessment tax and nothing was outstanding, then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. He has referred to the computation of income and penalty by the AO as well as the demand u/s 156 and submitted

Eastern Auto Investo Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2549/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: the ITAT and the Hon'ble Bench in

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. That the Ld. A.O. In the meantime had levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in an amount of Rs.27,81,000/-on 27.01.2022. 6. That the appeal against the said order was preferred before

Percival Joseph Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It) -3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4662/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

done on the basis of information given by the Assessee about said income and that penalty is not automatic and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs 20,10,01,733/- may be deleted. 3) The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty ... year of taxability and said issue is a legal and debatable issue and thus there is no concealment of income and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs 20,10,01,733/- may be deleted.” 1) The Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal

Percival Joseph Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4661/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

Nina Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1878/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

1)(2) New Delhi case. Ground no 21 regarding charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is consequential and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is premature. 44. The ground no 9 and 10 regarding challenge to the DVO reference is not adjudicated upon as the relief

Hersh Vardhan Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1877/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

Sangita Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1876/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Chandigarh -Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 582/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 582/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Chandigarh Housing Board Acit - Circle1(1) बनाम/ 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9 Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Chandigarh. Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaalc-0132-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. A K Jindal & Smt. Rattan Kaur (Cas) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) For Rs.24.92 Lacs, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Impugned Penalty Has Been Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 31-03- 2019 Which Has Been Confirmed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre [Cit(A)] Vide Order Dated 19-03-2024. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Cited Various Case Laws Favoring The Case Of The Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Also Advanced Arguments In Support Of Levy Of Penalty. Having Heard Rival

For Appellant: Sh. A K Jindal & Smt. Rattan Kaur (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

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

Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of certain penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.24.92 Lacs, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned penalty has been levied by Ld. AO vide order dated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Prabha Farms Private Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1748/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

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

preferred first appeal against quantum addition and when it was dismissed assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of 3 C.O. No.07/PUN/2025 Rs.77,24,199/-. Assessee preferred first appeal against imposition of penalty which was allowed ... vide order dated 22.03.2017 and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was deleted. The Revenue filed second appeal before the Tribunal against the deletion of penalty. Vide order date 27.02.2020, the Tribunal restored the issue of quantum to the Assessing Officer as well as vide order

Venkateshwar Reddy Atigadda, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2013-14 and 2016-17 are allowed

ITA 1286/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

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

Rs.16,83,476/- and consequently the AO initiated proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO thus levied penalty u/s 271(1)(C), being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.3,88,410/- vide order dated 05.02.2022. The assessee challenged the action ... assessee is only to the extent of Rs.88,68,506/-, hence, it is a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, attracting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Though the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed deduction u/s 54F to the extent of eligible investment, however, when the balance claim

Venkateshwar Reddy Attigada, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2013-14 and 2016-17 are allowed

ITA 1285/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

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

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber, Parel vs. Chetan Pravin Chitalia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2101/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)Section 690

this act of the assessee itself established deliberate failure to furnish accurate particulars of the income, which attracts for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of income? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Chetan Pravin Chitalia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2100/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)Section 690

Bright Enterprises Private Limited Mbd House, Gulab Bhawan Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1) New Delhi, Jao DCIT 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4792/DEL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

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

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 28/03/2013. The impugned penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by ACIT, Circle 5(1), New Delhi vide order dated 29/09/2019. 3. The assessee has raised two issues ... first on jurisdiction and second on merits. As regards first issue regarding assumption of the jurisdiction by the AO for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated by the assessment order, where there is no specific charge, i.e. either for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeals are allowed

ITA 665/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee is contending that the show- cause notice issued by AO u/s 274 does not specify the charge for which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) would be levied. On perusal of the show-cause notice issued by AO as re-produced in earlier para, we observe that the notice contains ... however, raised an important point that in the assessment-order, the AO has clearly mentioned that the assessee concealed income and since penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has its origin from assessment-order, it has to be construed that the AO has specified charge in the assessment-order itself

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeals are allowed

ITA 664/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax

Appeals are allowed

ITA 663/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ACIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Crystal Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 985/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.985/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Acit, Vs. Crystal Impex Ltd., Circle – 5(1)(1), Gr. Floor, My Home Apartment, Mumbai V. N. Malik X Laten, Forjeet, Gawalia Tank, Mumbai - 400036 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaac1264F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajendra Joshi, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ketal Vajani, Ar Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 68

investigation report of the Intelligence and Criminal Investigation Unit (I&CI) and added Rs.3,32,48,807/-. He has separately initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. ITA No.985/MUM/2025/AY.2015-16 Crystal Impex Limited 3.1 The AO also disallowed Rs.34,612/- u/s 14A read

Moraj Building Concepts Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 302/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessment order, have been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order dated 15.12.2021. The mens-rea is also clear & established. Hence, Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is attracted and is imposable. 6. In view of the above discussion and on careful consideration of facts and circumstances of the case ... confirmed the addition made by the A.O. 3. The assessee has failed to give any explanation or reply and defence for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee has deliberately concealed its taxable income by making inaccurate claims. 5. That this case is fit case