“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)

Srijan Control Drives, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 2204/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

return filed in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. We find the Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the amount of Rs.22,49,410/- which 5 has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is the submission

Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

income with respect to income from house property of amount of Rs.31,920/- and of Rs.42,000/- hence is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, I consider this to be a fit case for imposing penalty under Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c ... assessee, the undersigned hereby levies 100% of the tax sought to be evaded which comes at Rs. 12,27,93,180/- as penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ….” 13. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune vs. Ambience Developments, Ghorpadi, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1491/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1491/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ramnath P. MurkundeFor Respondent: Shri Hari Krishan

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

assessment order. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer has correctly initiated the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 on the basis of the addition made by the assessing officer on account of estimated profit margin in Ambience Greendale Project

DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

Shivaji Laxman Sahane, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1078/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S.ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

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

facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) is not justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without addressing the submissions made by the appellant. 4. The appellant craves for the addition to, deletion, alteration, modification of the above ... hereby requested to appear before me on or before 11.00 Α.Μ. 16.03.2016 and show cause as to why an order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be passed in your case for the A.Y. 2010-11. If you do not wish to avail yourself

Multicoat Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 593/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

that the issue in the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the ld. AO for re-adjudication, hence, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, no longer survive. In this circumstance, the penalty as levied u/s 271(1)(c

Multicoat Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 4(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 592/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Mukesh Kumar Saini, Dausa Rajasthan vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

ITA 169/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

271(1)© ) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the AO erred in imposing the penalty u/s 271(1) (c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and simultaneously ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard which ... appeal, statement of facts and the assessment order The only and effective grounds of appeal is raised against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 20,57.683/- on the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. In this case, the appellant had not filed

Mukesh Kumar Saini, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

ITA 168/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 270A

Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Neeraj Jindal [2017] 79 taxmann.com 96/393 ITR 1 (Delhi) has deleted penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act when an assessee has filed revised return after search has been conducted, and such revised return has been accepted by Assessing

Hetal Ramanlal Shah, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1274/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Ms. Dalzin Madan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)(a)Section 40A(3)(b)

repeated opportunities offered. In view of the above discussion I am satisfied that the Assessing Officer has acted correctly in imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and confirm the order. Grounds No 1 to 3 are, therefore, dismissed. In the result ... Income-tax Officer vs. Sunil Bhagwandas Vorani (HUF) [2024] 169 taxmann.com 23 (Mumbai-Trib.)[22-07-2024], the ITAT held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not attracted where addition is made on estimate basis. 15. In the case of AKM Resorts vs. ACIT [2025] 171 taxmann.com 685 (Chandigarh

M/S. Ugs Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1932/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), MS MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Appellant Pray accordingly.” 4. As is evident from the grounds above, the solitary issue involved in the present appeal is levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income/ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The orders of the authorities below reveal that ... which was introduced in the Books of Accounts in the garb of Share Capital and Share Premium and hence Penalty u/s 271 (1) ( c) is imposable. Accordingly, the Penalty imposed upon the Assessee Company for AY 04 05 by the Learned Assessing Officer vide order u/s 271 (1) (c ) dated

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1068/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

that the assesses claimed bogus purchases in its Return of income in order to suppress taxable incme thereby making himself liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Varachha Road, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1062/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. Shri Bhupinder Singh Talwar, Lucknow

Appeal is allowed

ITA 130/LKW/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A No.130/Lkw/2015

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 158BSection 271(1)(c)Section 292CSection 69

income. As the assessee has concealed particulars of her income on this account and furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, she is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) the I.T. Act, 1961 and, therefore, proceedings for the same are being initiated hereby separately. 5. During the course of search u/s

Chintpurni School Educational Society, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Mumba

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 6591/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2020-21