“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)

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6767/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6744/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6743/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pacl Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2884/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, however, Assessing Officer rejected the same and proceeded to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.12,51,51,671/- which is 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.

Section 132Section 133ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

that the issue under consideration is pending before the Hon’ble ITAT, however, Assessing Officer rejected the same and proceeded to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 12,51,51,671/- which is 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. Aggrieved with ... time of penalty proceedings and the Ld AO has to take cognisance of this material before deciding the proceedings of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the II Act. Further the disallowances are on adhoc basis. It is a settled issue on the basis of pronouncements of various High Courts

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3627/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3626/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3625/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3624/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3623/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3368/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Vijay Padharinath Avhad, Mumbai vs. CIT Ward 3(4), Thane

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

ITA 1019/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2009-10 Vijay Pandharinath Avhad, A-504, Swastik Park, Reti Bunder Road Near, Umeshnagar, Dombivli West – 421 201 Pan: Aftpa-8153-J - Appellant

For Appellant: Shri N.A.KulkarniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SR DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

thus been sustained partially on estimated basis. 4. The ld A.R further submitted that it is settled proposition of law that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed on the additions made on estimate basis. In support of the above said legal proposition ... Shaligram Sharda vs. ITO, (ITA No.1907 & 1908/ Mum/2021, dated 22/02/2023. In all the above said cases, it has been held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on the estimated additions. We notice that the Co-ordinate Bench, in the case of Mukesh Shaligram

Sh. Jagmohan Singh, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

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

have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. The issue under consideration relates to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) whereby the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 which has been denied by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. More specifically, the charge ... said explanation cannot be accepted and inspite of that, the claim of deduction has been denied besides levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C). 18. It is also a matter of record that the assessee has not deposited the remaining amount, other than the amount spent on purchase of residential

M/S Happy Steel Private Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 398/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271A

Limited’ (supra), which has been relied on by the CIT(A), it is seen that the said decision pertains to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The decisions discussed hereinabove, on the other hand, are directly on penalty levied u/s 271AAB(1) of the Act, which

Balasingam Somasundaram, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed

ITA 1211/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1211/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri Balasingam Somasundaram, The Asst. Commissioner- No.34-35, Tatabad, 1St Street, Of Income Tax, Dr.Sivanandha Nagar, Tatabad S.O., Central Cirlce-1, Coimbatore-641 012. Coimbatore.

For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

suppression of gross receipts of Rs.1,14,20,136/-. The Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty, but we note that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained because there is no satisfaction recorded by AO in the assessment order dated 19.03.2022 as required u/s 271 (1

Rahil Maheshkumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle 1(2), Blr, Bangalore

ITA 379/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan &For Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R

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

This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2014-15 dated 4.1.2024 relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order ... authorities below in so far as levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The order levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c

Aadinath Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4006/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Aadinath Securities Pvt Ltd V. Ito Ward 4 (1)(3) C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Aayakar Bhavan 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Maharishi Karve Road Kamala Mills Compound New Marine Lines, Churchgate Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400020 Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aafca3411P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Harmesh Lal

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in invoking penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter

Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, The Income Tax Officer, 37 38 39 40, Aditya Avenue, V Ward-1(3), Nashik. Tidke Colony, S Nashik – 422002. Pan: Adipj1793J Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 20.02.2024 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.05.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 To Rs 10,13,112 (Being 100% Of Tax Evaded) As Against The Penalty Of Rs. 20,64,224 (Being 200% Of Tax Evaded For Concealment Of Income). The Learned I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That There Is No Any Concealment Of Income.

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in law in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the ITA, 1961 to Rs 10,13,112 (being 100% of tax evaded) as against the penalty of Rs. 20,64,224 (being ... Income of the assessee is assessed at (-) 1,13,171/-. The Ld.AR submitted that since the quantum addition has been deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable. Submission of LD.DR : 3. Ld.DR accepted that after the order of CIT(A) income of the assessee has been reduced

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 71/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

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

ITAT Mumbai Bench Judgement the assessee's case will fall under the category of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act was rightly imposed by the AO.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR supported the order ... inaccurate particulars of such income. Mere disallowance of the claim in the assessment proceedings could not be the sole basis for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is a settled law that mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself, will

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 704/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 2 of 23 ITA Nos.701 & 704/Bang/2024 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 which are directed against the different orders of NFAC dated

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 703/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)