“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)

Manish Banshilal Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 572/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

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

penalty u/s 271B and 271(1)(c) of the Act and ITA No.575/SRT/2023 (AY 2010-11) assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In both quantum appeals, the facts are common and grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are similar except variance

Manish Banshilal Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 571/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

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

Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 1529/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH a

Section 12ASection 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

with an annexure has been issued in the name of the trust asking the trust to show cause as to why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should 3 Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust not be levied in its case. He further informed that in the annexure ... income during the year 9.1 In this grounds of appeal NO.4, the appellant contended that the assessing officer erred n initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, since the appellant had not suppressed any of the income during the year. In this regard

Meena Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 1418/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Officer, being not impressed with the explanation of the assessee levied penalty on the said disallowance. The AO however, while levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act mentioned that it is for “concealment of income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars”. 6. Aggrieved the assessee is before ... assessee, does not specify the limb under which the penalty is levied. We find that while recording satisfaction, for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has not mentioned on what account penalty is being levied–whether for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate

ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi vs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 8079/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

lower appellate discussion reading as under: “5.4 Ground no. 2 is directed against the grievance of appellant with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on technical ground. 5.5 The AR of the appellant submits as under: 1. At the foremost, the Appellant furnished that the penalty ... addition to the above, the Appellant also furnished its submission that there has to be presence of 'mens rea' for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and there has to be a deliberate attempt on part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of income. The Appellant contended that

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vodafone West Ltd., (Thereafter Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 7658/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Section 271(1)(c)

Rsrg Devbuild P. Ltd, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 692/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

assessee’s appeal against assessment-order [hereafter referred to as “Quantum-Appeal”] is. still pending before CIT(A) and since the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is consequential to the addition made in assessment-order, this matter should also be remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication

M/S Manisha Rubber Enterprises, Mulund West vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(3), Mumbai, Bandra East

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

ITA 454/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 454/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S. Manisha Rubber V/S. Ito, Ward 41(2)(3), Enterprises बिधम Mumbai 50, Unique Industrial Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Estate, Dr. R. P. Road, 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mulund (W), Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400080 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafm6198D Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

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

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed a manual appeal on 28.04.2016 against the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.05.2019 on the technical ground that the appeal was required to be filed

Classone Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5142/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalito, Ward-6(2) Class One Exports New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Flat No.10, C ½ Model Town, Delhi-110009 Pan: Aaacc3806H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ajay Kumar, Employee Of Company Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/02/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 In Appeal No.10647/16-17 Dated 12.03.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Shares & Securities. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.09.2014 Declared Nil Income Which Stood Processed. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Class One Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Scrutiny Through Cass & The Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Wherein The Income Under The Head Of Business In Profession Was Estimated On The Turnover Of Rs.31,28,79,852/- By Applying Profit Rate Of 2% & Net Addition Of Rs.62,57,597/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Assessee. Against Such Order The Appeal Was Filed Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thus, The Assessee Has Preferred The Appeal Before The Tribunal By Taking Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Assessment Order & The Appeal Order Passed By Cit As Well As By Ito Is Bad Both On Facts & In The Eyes Of Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

rule of consistency must be maintained. That the learned AO erred in the eyes of law and on facts wherein he imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the assessee wherein it is settled position of law by the jurisdictional higher authority Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi benches that ... penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed wherein income is estimated. This is without prejudice to the right of the appellant to claim that it had not filed any inaccurate particulars of income or concealed any income. The appellant craves and reserves its right to alter, add or modify

Amman Spintex, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 2079/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2079 & 2080/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Amman Spintex, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.155, Mill Road, Vs. Income Tax, Gobichettipalayam, Circle-1, Erode – 638 476. Erode. [Pan: Aazfa 7154J]

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 273BSection 80I

Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (Bom.), in context of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has held that merely making an incorrect claim does not tantamount to furnish inaccurate particulars of income unless there is evidence

Ridhiraj Builders, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Ncrb, Jaipur

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

ITA 1167/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Sha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl.CIT a

Section 115BSection 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue necessary forms. Computation in ITNS 150 is enclosed which is part of this order. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r/w section 274 of the IT Act is initiated for concealment of income. 4. Being aggrieved, from the said order of assessment

Smt. Poojaben P. Shah, Jamnagar vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed partly in above terms

ITA 422/RJT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.422/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Poojaben Pankajbhai Shah, Vs. The Dcit, Khushboo Wadi, Indira Gandhi Circle - 2(1), Marg, Jamnagar - 380005 Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afgps1755K (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aiyushman Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. Learned CIT(A) erred initializing the concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c). ITA Nos.422/RJT/2023/AY.2011-12 Poojaben Pankajbhai Shah 4. Learned CIT(A) has proceeded in re-assessment on wrong factual facts and incorrect information in recorded reasons

The Govt. Tele Communication Employees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

ITA 2743/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

this common order for the sake of brevity. 2. The sole issue is whether the lower authorities are justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act in the peculiar facts of the case for AYs 2011- 12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 ? 3. First

The Govt. Tele Communication Employees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

ITA 2742/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

The Govt. Tele Communication Employees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

ITA 2741/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

The Govt. Tele Communication Empoloyees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

ITA 2740/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

M/S. Ruby Gems Private Limited, Surat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 613/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Ruby Gems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ 10/15,Crown Plaza, 2(1)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. Salabatpura, Surat-395 002 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecr 3885 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By None राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

addition made by Ld. AO is liable to be deleted. 3.The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing

Nalini Vijay Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1542/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

facts in upholding penalty of Rs.74,86,465/- u/s 271(1)(c). 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.74,86,465. 3.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well

Nalini Vijay Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1541/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

Nalini Vijay Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1540/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)