“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)

Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

settled judicial I.T.A. No. 10/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Rajesh Agarwal 2 precedents, when the additions are made on estimate basis, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is not leviable. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities ... furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed any income. Under these given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. We accordingly set aside the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and delete the penalty u/s 271

Bijender Singh, Panipat vs. ITO Ward - 3, Panipat

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 873/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma(Through Hybrid Mode) (A.Y: 2013-14) & [Penalty Appeal U/S 271(1)(C)] (A.Y: 2013-14)

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

6775/Del/2018 arising out of the merits or additions, the assessment order has been quashed, the consequent penalty order dated 26.09.2016, levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is also quashed. 7. Resultantly Both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in open court

Bijender Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Panipat

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6775/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma(Through Hybrid Mode) (A.Y: 2013-14) & [Penalty Appeal U/S 271(1)(C)] (A.Y: 2013-14)

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

Namdeo Indarrao Gore, Pune vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 Pune, Pune

ITA 1397/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1397/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Namdeo Indarrao Gore, The Dy.Commissioner Of Subhadra Cme Engineers, V Income Tax, Plot No.1, Subhadra House, S Circle-5, Pune. Nanded Phata, Maharashtra – 411041. Pan: Aavpg0671L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Ar Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2024 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 Dated 26.10.2023. The Assessee For A.Y.2015-16 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Ao Erred In Making & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.30,71,906/- U/S 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act On Account Of Unpaid Sundry Creditors. Namdeo Indarrao Gore [A]

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

same during the year, which amounts to Rs.30,71,906/-. The same is added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT

Annapurna Boddu, West Godavari vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Annapurna Boddu Vs. Assistant. C. I. T. West Godavari Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Ayxpb7323A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

particulars of income are duly disclosed, mere disallowance of a claim or non-acceptance of a claim would not attract levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 9. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers ... while computing the income. He also relied on the following decisions and submitted that under somewhat similar circumstances, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is held to be not justified: a) Late Shri Pawan Garg vs. ACIT in ITA No.1475/CHD/ 2018 dated 17.01.2022 b) Dineshkumar Kanjibhai Patel – HUF vs. Income

DCIT CC- 3(4), Mumbai vs. Bhawanishankar Harishchandra Sharma, Mumbai

ITA 2764/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 50C(2)

fair value determined by the DVO became the basis of the calculation of the differential tax liability and also the resultant penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8.8 As regards the levy of penalty on this issue, it is seen that it has been held by various Courts

Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., Kutch vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is hereby allowed

ITA 676/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 676/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, Plot No.617/1-618-620, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nh-8A, Po. Samakhiyari (Piprapati), Ahmedabad Bhachau Taluka, Samakhiyari-370150. Pan: Aaics6992G

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

appeal of the assessee. 7.2 In view of the above, we hold that the assessee should not be visited to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of bonafide mistake committed by it (the assessee). Hence, we set aside the findings of the Ld.CIT

ACIT Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Balaji Farms and Reality, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed and assessee’s cross-

ITA 166/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2, M/S.Balaji Farms & बनाम/ Bhopal Reality, Vs. 158,3Rd Floor, Zone-Ii, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aalfb9630L) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

1,90,80,480/-). In the assessment-order so made, the AO recorded satisfaction for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and simultaneously, vide show-cause notice dated 09.03.2015, initiated penalty proceeding. Against assessment-order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) but, however, the CIT(A) passed ... assessed income by Rs. 21,00,000/-. In the re- assessment order so made, the AO again recorded satisfaction for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). (iii) Thereafter, vide show-cause notice dated 06.03.2019, the AO resumed penalty proceeding originally initiated vide show-cause notice dated 09.03.2015. Ultimately

Nidhi Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44 (7), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)Section 6

Vishwas Scheme, 2020. He contended that in view of the dispute being settled with the Revenue in quantum proceedings the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), levied by AO and confirmed by learned CIT(A), does not have its legs to stand

Wideangle Financial Services Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 63/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.63/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Wideangle Financial Services Ltd…….…................…...……………....Appellant 33/1, 4Th Floor, R.N. 412, Marshal House, N.S. Road, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aaacw2477Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. H. Jariwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 20, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Assessment Order To Submit That The Assessee Had Made An Expenditure Of Rs.7,00,000/- To Get Membership Of Otc Exchange Of India. The Assessee Claimed The Said Expenditure As Revenue Expenditure. However, The Assessing Officer Treated The Same

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has agitated against the levy/confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit ... expenditure as capital expenditure ,but that itself, under the circumstances, is not a case of evasion of tax warranting the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The impugned penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted

Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 226/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act. The Ld. A.O has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB ... conditions provided u/s 27IAAB of the Act. The Id. AO has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB

Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 225/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 224/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Mak Logistics(P)Ltd, Port Blair vs. DCIT, Circle 3(2), Port Blair

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 978/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.978/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mak Logistics Pvt. Ltd……..………….…................…...……………....Appellant 99, Gati Coast To Coast, Haddo Po Delanipur, Port Blair, Union Territory Of Andaman & Nicobar Island, 744102. [Pan: Aaecm2139H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2), Port Blair...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 19, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Aforesaid Penalty Was Outcome Of The Quantum Addition Made By The Assessing Officer. That The Appeal Against The Quantum Additions Is Still Pending Before The Ld. Cit(A). That If The Quantum Additions Stand

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has agitated against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the aforesaid penalty was outcome of the quantum

The Pandharpur Urban Co Op Bank Ltd, Pandharpur vs. ACIT, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1169/PUN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viii)

assessee directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-11 dated 13.09.2023 confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2016-17.. 2. Briefly, the facts

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3038/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the AO did not initiate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A.Nos.3036 to 3038/Del/2018 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions ... justified in holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for non-initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been considered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. Precision Metal Works & Othrs

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3037/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

Jet Lite (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6 (Now CC-1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR

Section 156Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

this appeal by hearing the ld DR and based on materials available on record. The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the instant case. The ld DR submitted that the additions made in the assessment have been duly confirmed ... which has been passed on 10.03.2014. Therefore, the argument of the AR that notice 10.03.2014 asking to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed is indicating fresh initiation of penalty is only figment of imagination of the AR. 6. Impugned order imposing

Shri Vijay Suresh Dave, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2842/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 68

action of the AO of making addition of Rs.79,44,162/- & Rs. 13,633/- is confirmed. . As far as the initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned, I find the AO has initiated the penalty based on the observations made during the assessment proceedings. Since the penalty