“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)

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

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

ITA 1539/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 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

Ms Imsofer Manufacturing India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)– Pune and National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Pune and NFAC (Delhi)

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

ITA 1316/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule &

Section 154Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(A)

allowed substantial relief to the assessee and now it is the sole prayer of the assessee that the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) may kindly be decided in the light of above order passed by the Tribunal in the quantum assessment case. 7. Ld. DR appearing from ... record. We find that the quantum assessment order for the same assessment year which was the basis for levy of impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was also under challenge before Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter before the Tribunal. And the Tribunal has already allowed substantial

Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 140/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

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. The AO imposed the penalty accordingly and this order was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the ld.CIT

Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 139/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

Alliance Dealers Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 89/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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. 2,62,650/- 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. The AO imposed the penalty accordingly and this order was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the ld.CIT

Sujan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/AHD/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 132(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

issue with Ld. First Appellate Authority who restricted the addition to Rs.35,67,018/-. The Assessing Officer subsequently levied the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.35,67,018/- made on the basis of loos paper found during search. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee ... furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs.39,31,296/- and therefore this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)’. To conclude, the Assessing Officer levied penalty holding that ‘the assessee has committed default u/s 271(1)(c

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara

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

ITA 1289/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

addition on account of capital grant is a matter pending before ITAT, when assessment has been made on basis of book profit, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on the addition made under normal provisions of the Act and relied upon ITAT Mumbai Bench decision in the case ... above, para 5 of afore- mentioned CBDT's Circular 25 of 2015 dated 31-12-2015 comes into play, and thus penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not attracted. Accordingly, the same is deleted.” 5. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 66/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

details from Apollo Hospital and made addition of unaccounted OP consultation received in the assessment order. The A.O has also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income during course of assessment proceeding. The A.O has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... further submitted that penalty proceeding is different from assessment proceedings and merely because addition has been sustained, in itself does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that in identical case where addition has been made in the case of another doctor

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 64/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 61/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Prakash Chand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 60/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Hydro Power Development Corporation of Arunachal Pradesh Limited, Itanagar vs. A.C.I.T., Circle Tezpur, Tezpur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 72/GTY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

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

facts and procedure. 2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was unjustified in upholding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. For that your appellant craves leave of your honor to take additional ground or grounds and/or to modify any grounds

Kemox Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

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

ITA 219/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Br Baskaranhon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainkemox Corporation Vs. Dcit-Cc-3, Thane House No. 69/100, New Room No. 12, A Wing, Mavji Compound Narpoli 6Th Floor, Ashar It 421302. Park, Thane West. Pan/Gir No. Aaffk4685A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69CSection 69D

circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and/or delete

Kuber Metpack P.Ltd ( Formerly Known As Kevin Metpack P.Ltd), Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee vide ITR Nos

ITA 1408/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 68

result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA- 2711/Del/2022- Kuber Grains and Spices Pvt. Ltd. 45. ITA No. 2711/Del/2022 is regarding penalty U/s 271(1)(c) qua quantum addition challenged in ITA No. 1407(supra). We have already decided that there is no case for making any addition on account

Kuber Khadyan Pvt. Ltd., New Dlehi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee vide ITR Nos

ITA 320/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 68

Nitin Gopinath Bhoir, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 5717/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

allowed and penalty be deleted. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that this is a fit case for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act because in such cases, the penalty need to be imposed mandatorily otherwise each and every assessee will escape payment ... filing inaccurate particulars of income and defrauding the revenue by not paying the due taxes and make the appellant liable for penalty u/s 271(1) (c). 11. The contention of the appellant that the AO has made addition on estimated basis by invoking the deeming provisions of section

Sachin, Hisar vs. DCIT. Cental Cirtcle-7, Delhi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 2613/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2612/Del/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Cane Deveopment Council बनाम Income Tax Officer, Rohana Kalan, Ward 1(2), Vs. C/O Dinesh Mohan, Advocate, Muzaffarnagar, 2-Anand Vihar, Lane No.1, Uttar Pradesh. Circular Road, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaalc0277F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)

natural justice. 4. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the mere disallowances of claim/expenses claimed do not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and the same has been wrongly upheld. 5. That the AO/CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances, has erred in making ... c). 6. That the information filed and the material available on record are not properly considered and as such the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal and bad in law. 7. That the appellant had neither concealed particulars of income nor had not filed inaccurate particulars

Bhaktvatsal Sadguru Yogiraj Vasantrao Gopalrao Ghonge Maharaj Trust, Wardha vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 598/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

time to time as given above but the appellant failed to offer any explanation or submit any evidences in support of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed against it. Therefore, the grounds taken by it are not tenable and thus dismissed.” 6. Now, before

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central- Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Yashwant Ajabrao Khodke, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 153CSection 69C

being treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for concealment of above income. 6 Shri Yashwant Ajabrao Khodke ITA no.6/Nag./2024 8. With the above comments, the total

Kuber Grains & Spices Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee vide ITR Nos

ITA 2711/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 68