← 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)

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5096/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

paid was certainly in the same line of business and under the common management therefore addition was on a debatable point and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied by following the ratio of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.(supra). CIT(A) thus concluded that: “8.11 In view

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5095/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

paid was certainly in the same line of business and under the common management therefore addition was on a debatable point and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied by following the ratio of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.(supra). CIT(A) thus concluded that: “8.11 In view

M/S. Atul Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

ITA 446/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr.Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92C

same are dismissed. Ground of appeal No.15 & 16, against the levy of interest u/s 234B/C/D of the Act, and against initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, being consequential and premature respectively are not being dealt with by us. 54. In effect, the appeal of the assessee

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. American Express India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2577/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumaramerican Express (India) Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (1), Metropolitan Saket, New Delhi. 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaaca8163F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle 1(1) Vs American Express (India) Private Room No.392, C.R. Building, Ltd., I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

reasonable opportunity of being heard, as mentioned on page 1 of this order. The Assessing Officer may examine issue of initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in accordance with Explanation 7 of the same.” 3. Referring to the above, ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that ... assessee was afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard, as mentioned earlier. The Assessing Officer may examine issue of limitation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in accordance with Explanation 7 of the same as already stated in the order u/s 92CA(3) dated 16.01.2013.” 5. Referring

M/S. American Express (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1973/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumaramerican Express (India) Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (1), Metropolitan Saket, New Delhi. 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaaca8163F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle 1(1) Vs American Express (India) Private Room No.392, C.R. Building, Ltd., I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

reasonable opportunity of being heard, as mentioned on page 1 of this order. The Assessing Officer may examine issue of initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in accordance with Explanation 7 of the same.” 3. Referring to the above, ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that ... assessee was afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard, as mentioned earlier. The Assessing Officer may examine issue of limitation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in accordance with Explanation 7 of the same as already stated in the order u/s 92CA(3) dated 16.01.2013.” 5. Referring

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Karad Satara vs. The Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Karad Satara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 919/PUN/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the mere disallowance of claim for deduction does not entail levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products ... deleted the penalty. 8. The ld. AR, Smt. Deepa Khare on the other hand brought to our notice that the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by order dated 18-01-2022 in ITA No. 2600/PUN/2017

Chandrasekhar Nudurumati, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

dated 22.12.2023, 26.12.023 & 26.12.2023 respectively. 2. The issue in all these appeals is with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) at Rs.1,90,511/-, Rs.2,04,941/- & Rs.2,41,054/- in the assessment years ... years. Consequently, the ld. AO after completion of the assessment invoked provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax to be evaded due to furnishing of following particulars of income: AY Amount 2014-15 1

Chandrasekhar Nudurumati, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

dated 22.12.2023, 26.12.023 & 26.12.2023 respectively. 2. The issue in all these appeals is with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) at Rs.1,90,511/-, Rs.2,04,941/- & Rs.2,41,054/- in the assessment years ... years. Consequently, the ld. AO after completion of the assessment invoked provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax to be evaded due to furnishing of following particulars of income: AY Amount 2014-15 1

Chandrasekhar Nudurumati, Telangana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

dated 22.12.2023, 26.12.023 & 26.12.2023 respectively. 2. The issue in all these appeals is with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) at Rs.1,90,511/-, Rs.2,04,941/- & Rs.2,41,054/- in the assessment years ... years. Consequently, the ld. AO after completion of the assessment invoked provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax to be evaded due to furnishing of following particulars of income: AY Amount 2014-15 1

Aditya Arav Dev-Cons Co Private Limited, Ramnagargarh, Dhanbad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kali Mitra Lane Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Aditya Arav Dev-Cons Co Private Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited Vs Circle - 1, Kolkata Kali Mitra Lane Kolkata - 700006 [Pan : Aahca8209M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.N. Keshari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 29/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Finding Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.14,21,776/- Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Impugned Penalty Has Been Levied On The Additions Made On Estimate Basis & There Is No Specific Finding For Making The Addition That The Assessee Has Concealed Particulars Of Income Or Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri A.N. Keshari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

income. It has been consistently held by various judicial forums that if an addition has been made purely on estimate basis, then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. We draw reference from the following decisions:-  CIT VS. Subhash Trading Co. 1996-131 CTR (Gujarat) 121.  Naresh

Vijay Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(2), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 485/IND/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 271(1)(c)

household withdrawals made by AO was not based on any incriminating material; it was purely on estimation. Ld. AR contended that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposable only where the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income but in the case of addition ... made purely on estimation, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. Ld. DR could not rebut or controvert this proposition advanced by Ld. AR. On a mindful consideration, we too agree in line with numerous judicial rulings available in public domain that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot

Vijay Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(2), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 484/IND/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 271(1)(c)

household withdrawals made by AO was not based on any incriminating material; it was purely on estimation. Ld. AR contended that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposable only where the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income but in the case of addition ... made purely on estimation, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. Ld. DR could not rebut or controvert this proposition advanced by Ld. AR. On a mindful consideration, we too agree in line with numerous judicial rulings available in public domain that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot

Vijay Choudhary, Andheri Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(2), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 483/IND/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 271(1)(c)

household withdrawals made by AO was not based on any incriminating material; it was purely on estimation. Ld. AR contended that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposable only where the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income but in the case of addition ... made purely on estimation, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. Ld. DR could not rebut or controvert this proposition advanced by Ld. AR. On a mindful consideration, we too agree in line with numerous judicial rulings available in public domain that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot

Vijay Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(2), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 482/IND/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 271(1)(c)

household withdrawals made by AO was not based on any incriminating material; it was purely on estimation. Ld. AR contended that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposable only where the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income but in the case of addition ... made purely on estimation, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. Ld. DR could not rebut or controvert this proposition advanced by Ld. AR. On a mindful consideration, we too agree in line with numerous judicial rulings available in public domain that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot

Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 789/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), which are though decided in respect of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), but the ratio related to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is pari materia with provisions of section 270A dealing with misreporting of income

Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 788/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), which are though decided in respect of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), but the ratio related to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is pari materia with provisions of section 270A dealing with misreporting of income

Micropoint Computers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3414/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

scope of Limited Scrutiny 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and also charging interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D. 4. In the facts of the case and in Law, the learned ... learned AR, ground no.2 is left open. 14. Ground no.3 raised in assessee’s appeal pertains to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and charging of interest u/ss 234B and 234C of the Act. Insofar as the levy of penalty is concerned, the same

Bengal Mill Stores P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1204/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Bengal Mill Stores P. Ltd. 205, Maganlal Chamber, Dcit- Circle 6(1)(2) Baburao Bobde Marg, Iron Mumbai-400 Vs. Market Mumbai-400 009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb2473Q : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 19.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

received from MAHAVAT Department. (f) Not providing cross-examination of suppliers. 3) The Assessing Officer wrongly charged interest u/s 234 and Initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c)” The assessee is a company engaged in trading in Iron, Steel and 03. Pipes. It filed its return of income on 25th September

Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3883/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepanshu Singla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

1,53,65,576/- purely on assumption and presumption without any evidence. 7. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Income

M/S Shree Ganesh Jewellers Limited, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Circle V(1), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 172/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.J. Shalley, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

reply dated 27/07/2021. The judgement pronounced in the case laws referred by the assessee are related to the provision of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealment of Income. In this case penalty has been initiated u/s 270A of the IT Act for under-reporting ... income which is different to the provision of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Hence, the contention of the assessee has been not found acceptable. 5. In view of above facts and discussion, it has been observed that it is a fit case for imposition of penalty