← All Phrases

“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
49
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
45
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
30
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
28
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
27
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
24
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)

Sujata Pramod Dalvi, Thane vs. DCIT CC, Thane

ITA 3380/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain & Prateek JainFor Respondent: Smt.Madhu Malti Ghosh (CIT DR)&
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69ASection 69C

circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C and also initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even though no income is concealed & CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.” 2.1.Shri Pramod Mukund Dalvi, ITA No 3390/Mum/2023 ... circumstances of the case and in law. The Assessing Officer erred in levying interest n/s 234A. 234B and 234C and also initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even though no income is concealed & C1T(A) erred in confirming the same." 2.3.M/s Om Developers ITA No 3387/Mum/2023

ACIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Gits Food Products Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2058/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Preetam Kumar H. Turerao, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

such purchases. Thereafter, vide order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act the assessing officer has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to the amount of Rs. 2,74,470/- for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied ... Ward- 1(5), Thane vs Shri Hemant Manohar Takle in ITA No. 356, 357 & 258/Mum/2019 dated 23.01.2020 on the proposition that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where the addition is made on estimated basis. In the light of the above findings, we observe

Nikshal Poperties Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” The issue of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature needs no adjudication

ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ardor Overseas Private Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2812/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” The issue of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature needs no adjudication

Ardor Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2785/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” The issue of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature needs no adjudication

Mitul Pravinchandra Malani, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 33, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

ITA 931/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice issued by the A.O. u/s 274/271 and ought to have allowed the appeal of the appellant. 4. For that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the amount of Rs.9,560/- is wrong and uncalled for. 5. For that further grounds of appeal may kindly be allowed

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Sandhya Patni, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1070/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Godha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT D/R fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3Section 68

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for concealing the particulars of income ignoring the facts that no appeal has been filed by the assessee against the addition ... also copy of CIT(A) filed on dt.:- 13/08/2024 is enclosed. That the Learned CIT(A)(Faceless) vide order dt.25/06/2024 deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 825061/- stating as under.:- “It is apparent that the appellant had already offered the above gain to tax in the revised

ITO, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Nirmal Developers, Mulund West

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4117/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Paresh DeshpandeFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the penalty knowing the fact that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed and levied on non-business expenditure disallowance. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... account of this disallowance. P a g e | 3 ITA No. 4117 & 4115/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Nirmal Developers Subsequently, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the AO vide order dated 17.02.2022 at Rs. 51,35,005/-. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal

ITO, Bkc vs. Nirmal Developers, Mulund West

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4115/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Paresh DeshpandeFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the penalty knowing the fact that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed and levied on non-business expenditure disallowance. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... account of this disallowance. P a g e | 3 ITA No. 4117 & 4115/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Nirmal Developers Subsequently, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the AO vide order dated 17.02.2022 at Rs. 51,35,005/-. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal

Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Pune vs. Regency Mahavir Properties, Dhole Patil Road, Pune

The appeal is DISMISSED in aforestated terms

ITA 1487/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt. Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Regency Mahavir Properties, A3-5Th Floor, The Fifth Avenue, Nr. Hotel Regency, Dhole Patil Rd., Pune-411001 Pan: Aajfr6383G . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 16/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Instituted By The Revenue U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064437931(1) Dt. 29/04/2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. ‘Nfac/Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Quashed The Order Of Penalty Dt. 22/03/2017 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Thane [‘Ld. Ao’].

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)

very outset from the Ld. DR Mr Desai’s submission that; in this case the assessing officer who framed the order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1 Thane. It is candidly then submitted that, the situs ... framed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act as well as the assessing officer who imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is under challenge, undisputedly falls beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Pune Tribunal/Benches. In this clinching factual position, we therefore

Sweta Chirimar, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)Section 68

assessee but in place of LTCG the entire sale consideration was added. In our opinion, the said sum is not liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Coordinate bench in the case of Sarika Dugar ... wherein the Coordinate Bench has held as under: “7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.1,50,000/- is in challenge before us. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, firstly has taken a legal ground

Ivan Santosh Fernandes, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4416/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)

file of the ld. CIT(A), we accordingly direct the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after deciding the quantum appeal. I.T.A. No. 4396 & 4416/Mum/2024 4 8. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Ivan Santosh Fernandes, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4396/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 4396 & 4416/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)

file of the ld. CIT(A), we accordingly direct the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after deciding the quantum appeal. 8. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Ashok Jasraj Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3839/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

remains unexplained and found suspicious and the same is being added to the total income for the year under consideration. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 is being initiated for concealment of income.” 7. Before the ld. CIT (A) assessee has challenged the reopening u/s.147. However

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1488/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 50

Supreme Court in M/s. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., in the case of M/s. Zoom Communications Itd. wherein the Hon'ble Court held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable when the explanation filed by assessee is not correct and/or not bonafide.?" 5. “The appellant prays that the order ... 1488/Mum/2016 LML Ltd concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars for the purpose of levy of penalty. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable if the AO is satisfied in the course of any proceedings under this Act that any person has concealed the particulars

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1411/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 80Section 80I

follows: ITA No. 1403/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16 (a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act of Rs.1,72,57,400/- on quantum additions i.e. Set off of losses of Rs.49,21,774/ while claiming deduction ... appeal. ITA No. 1411/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act of Rs.1,72,57,400/- on quantum additions i.e. Set off of losses of Rs.49,21,774/ while claiming deduction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1403/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 80Section 80I

follows: ITA No. 1403/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16 (a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act of Rs.1,72,57,400/- on quantum additions i.e. Set off of losses of Rs.49,21,774/ while claiming deduction ... appeal. ITA No. 1411/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act of Rs.1,72,57,400/- on quantum additions i.e. Set off of losses of Rs.49,21,774/ while claiming deduction

Mohini Srivastava, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhopal

ITA 255/IND/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Mohini Shrivastava, Ito 1(1), Hig-2/3,Geetanjali Complex, Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acwps6390R Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2024 O R D E R

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

concealed any particulars of income nor has she filed any accurate particulars thereof and as such levy of Smt. Mohini Shrivastava penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is absolutely arbitrary, baseless, Irreasonable, unlawful and contrary to prevailing legal standards/practices. Therefore, the same deserves to be deleted. Mere difference in Sale Consideration ... made by the A.O u/s 50C of the I.T Act to the capital gain of the assessee. The A.O has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of Rs.7,08,800/- made u/s 50C of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR has further contended that

M/S. Shree Swaminarayan Enterprises, Thane vs. ITO- 2(4), Thane

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

ITA 462/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrim/S. Shree Swaminarayan Ito Ward 2(4), Enterprises, Room No. 25, B Wing, बनाम/ Plot No.30, Jeevandeep, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Vs. Opp: Shivdham Complex, Road No 162,Wagle Suryodaya Housing Society, Industrial Estate Ambernath (E) Thane (W)-421301 Thane-421501. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abofs3402K (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Niraj Seth.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Krishna kumar.Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

passing of order under Section 271(1)(c) expired on 31.03.2019. 1.3 The Ld. AO has passed the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on 25.03.2022 i.e. after lapse of three years and therefore, the order is void and not tenable. 1.4 The appellant has pointed out this fact

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited Maholi Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262001, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur-New, Sitapur

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

ITA 164/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

their income nor concealed the particulars of its income. accordingly, merely on disallowance of claim does not lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act. (4) The penalty imposed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing