“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)

Sagayavincent Susai Mary, Neyveli vs. ITO Ward 4, Cuddalore

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 398/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.398/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ms. Sagayavincent Susai Mary Ito बनाम/ C-20, Nkr Pillai Street, Ward-4 Vs. Block-2, Neyveli-607 801. Cuddalore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Apaps-7578-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) For Rs.1.43 Lacs For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 31-12-2023 In The Matter Of Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act On 22-09- 2022. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. It Emerges That The Assessee, In The Regular Return Of Income

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

/Date of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.1.43 Lacs for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed ... also noted that the assessee suppressed salary to the extent of Rs.1.87 Lacs. Accordingly, Ld. AO proceeded to levy impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In defense, the assessee submitted that finding the information to be incorrect in regular return, the assessee immediately repaid the refund along with interest. However

Shri Khatu Shyam Builders, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

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

circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act without specifically pointing out in the show cause notice, whether the penalty was proposed on concealment of income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1872/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH

Bhuraram V. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 4404/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha

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

account of difference in gross profit margin from sales against purchases from the party alleged to be non-genuine on which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is levied.” 2. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,05,780/- was filed

Bhuraram V. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 4403/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha

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

Bhuraram V. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 4402/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha

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

Niraj Pratapbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2)(Formerly ITO, Ward-3(3)(3)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 87/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the learned AO in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and law on the issue. The action of the lower ... denovo adjudication vide this common order) , the appellate order dated 27.10.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A) w.r.t. penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can also be set aside and the matter can go back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the appeal of the assessee. Under the facts

Niraj Pratapbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), (Formerly ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 85/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

James Kudakuthiyil Chacko, Kerala vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle, Trivandrum

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 865/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

quantum addition in the assessment year 2013-14 passed by CIT(A)-12, Bengaluru dated 22.6.2022 with regard to confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. At the time of hearing, ld. A.R. filed a letter dated

James Kudakuthiyil Chacko, Kerala vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle, Trivandrum

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 864/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

Avathan Singaravalli, Pudukkottai vs. ITO Circle 3(1), Trichy

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 905/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.905/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ms. Avathan Singaravalli Acit बनाम/ 90, Agraharam, Rangojibava Street, Circle-3(1) Aranthangi Taluk, Trichy. Vs. Pudukottai Dist – 614 616. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Burps-1859-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) For Rs.17.63 Lacs For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 08-02-2024 In The Matter Of Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act On 26-06- 2019. It Could Be Seen That The Appeal Has Been Dismissed By Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

/Date of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.17.63 Lacs for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed

Ampa Palaniappan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

ITA 1371/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1370/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1371/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ampa Palaniappan Acit बनाम/ Non-Corporate Circle-2(1) 48/19, Raman Street, T. Nagar Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aippp-3546-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Mukundan (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mukundan (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

objected to by revenue. Accordingly, this appeal stand dismissed as withdrawn. 2. However, the only grievance of the assessee is confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.48.40 Lacs. The same is subject matter of ITA No.1371/Chny/2023. The Ld. AR, at the outset, urged legal ground No.5 and relied ... interest disallowance and also brought to tax difference in receipts. For the same, penalty was initiated in the assessment order as under: - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately. 3.2 During the course of penalty proceedings, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee u/s 274 read with

Ampa Palaniappan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corp Circle 2(1), Chennai

ITA 1370/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mukundan (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rajesh Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-2(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 319/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

consequential in nature and therefore, Ground No. 5 is dismissed. Ground No. 6 6.10 This ground is regards to initiating of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.11 In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that initiating of penalty u/s 271(1)(c

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 31/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble High Court Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of Hon’Ble Itat & The Matter Is Subjudice?”

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

amount of Rs.2,66,53,550/- which is not correct and by this way, the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, hence penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. He further noted that had the case not been revised by the Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur, the income taxable ... case penalty is not levied. Considering the above discussion, the ld. AO satisfied this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income. As per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c), minimum penalty

ACIT, Circle 2(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi vs. Rajiv Kumar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 158/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 295(2)(mm)

cooperative attitude. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering that the assessee has failed to furnish any detail even after availing ample opportunities.” Brief facts of the case

Smt. Harinder Kaur, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward-6(5), Mohali

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld Cit(A) & Secondly, The Ld Cit(A) Has Not Issued Any Show-Cause Before Holding That The Appeals Are Barred By Limitation

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

additions made by the Assessing officer while passing the assessment order u/s 147 r/w 144 of the Act and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of limitation and without the deciding the appeals on merits of the case. 3. In this regard

Smt. Harinder Kaur, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward-6(5), Mohali

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld Cit(A) & Secondly, The Ld Cit(A) Has Not Issued Any Show-Cause Before Holding That The Appeals Are Barred By Limitation

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Rajaram Patidar, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer 2(4), Hoshangabad Road

Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 129/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Rajaram Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.112, Near Ram Lila 2(4), Maidan, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Ward No. 52-53, Bhopal Vs. Misrod (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Bkapp7594R Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

also be deleted on merit. 6. So far as the first part of assessee’s grievance is concerned, we agree that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable qua the relief already granted by ITAT in quantum-proceeding because the very basis of imposition of penalty has collapsed

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Shakuntlam Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 697/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

income. As this action of the assessee of is of furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income which was liable for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Therefore, penalty proceedings were initiated along with that assessment order. 3.4 Aggrieved from that order of the assessment an appeal was filed before ... that reason, he hold that the 'Assessee' has committed default u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for an amount of Rs. 66,97,445/-. 4. Aggrieved from the order of levying