← 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)

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2315/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

added to the total income of the assessee Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. (Addition: Rs. 8,68,12,412/-) 38. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, as against which the Revenue preferred

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addlcit, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6506/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

added to the total income of the assessee Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. (Addition: Rs. 8,68,12,412/-) 38. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, as against which the Revenue preferred

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6296/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

added to the total income of the assessee Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. (Addition: Rs. 8,68,12,412/-) 38. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, as against which the Revenue preferred

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 5925/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

added to the total income of the assessee Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. (Addition: Rs. 8,68,12,412/-) 38. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, as against which the Revenue preferred

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 5903/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

added to the total income of the assessee Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. (Addition: Rs. 8,68,12,412/-) 38. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, as against which the Revenue preferred

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 389/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

more is required to be proved. There may be several considerations on which additions may be made by the Ld AO, but penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be initiated on all such grounds. For initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c), the conditions mentioned under the said section must ... variation between the returned income and assessed income by virtue of addition or disallowance made because of deemed income assessed, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c), is to be levied. Similar view was taken by Madras High Court in the Case of CIT Vs Ramaswamy Naidu

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 388/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

more is required to be proved. There may be several considerations on which additions may be made by the Ld AO, but penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be initiated on all such grounds. For initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c), the conditions mentioned under the said section must ... variation between the returned income and assessed income by virtue of addition or disallowance made because of deemed income assessed, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c), is to be levied. Similar view was taken by Madras High Court in the Case of CIT Vs Ramaswamy Naidu

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 386/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

more is required to be proved. There may be several considerations on which additions may be made by the Ld AO, but penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be initiated on all such grounds. For initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c), the conditions mentioned under the said section must ... variation between the returned income and assessed income by virtue of addition or disallowance made because of deemed income assessed, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c), is to be levied. Similar view was taken by Madras High Court in the Case of CIT Vs Ramaswamy Naidu

The ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 379/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

more is required to be proved. There may be several considerations on which additions may be made by the Ld AO, but penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be initiated on all such grounds. For initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c), the conditions mentioned under the said section must ... variation between the returned income and assessed income by virtue of addition or disallowance made because of deemed income assessed, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c), is to be levied. Similar view was taken by Madras High Court in the Case of CIT Vs Ramaswamy Naidu

M/S Siddhula;L, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2(2) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 110/IND/2023[2011-12d]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 54B

interest u/s 234A and 234B which is unjustified. (5) The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that in the case of assessee-individual, the AO received an information that ... M/s.Siddhulal Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(2), Bhopal ITA No. 110/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12 14. This ground challenges the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is an independent levy and cannot be a part of present appeal before us. Further

Marvel Drugs Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-6(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3626/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ito 6(3)(3), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 20, Nagin Mahal, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 82 Vn Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm4655N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.R. Revenue By : Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/.2024 O R D E R Per : Sandeep Singh Karhail: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 11/08/2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2006-07, Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Dated 26/03/2013 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1) The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of 2 disallowances in the quantum assessment order, that were set aside to the file of the CIT(A) and another ... ITAT vide order dated 20/5 / 2019 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of other disallowances disregarding that it did not involve any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 2 M/s. Marvel Drugs

Jitesh Jitendra Sakhidas, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30 (1) (5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3112/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69B

account. Accordingly, the said amount is taxed u/s 69B of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income.” 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued various notices from

Sree Navaladian Finance, Namakkal vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1157/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Madras High court decision in Babuji Jacob Vs ITO (2021) in support of claim that defective penalty notice vitiates penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Hon'ble madras High court in above case has given a finding that facts of that case do not attract either 'concealment of Income' or inaccurate ... particulars of income' to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee has offered Explanation with regard to transaction on which penalty levied and during penalty proceedings itself, the assessee has raised objection wrt defective notice. But in the present case, both limbs i.e Concealment of Income, Furnishing of Inaccurate

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1156/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Madras High court decision in Babuji Jacob Vs ITO (2021) in support of claim that defective penalty notice vitiates penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Hon'ble madras High court in above case has given a finding that facts of that case do not attract either 'concealment of Income' or inaccurate ... particulars of income' to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee has offered Explanation with regard to transaction on which penalty levied and during penalty proceedings itself, the assessee has raised objection wrt defective notice. But in the present case, both limbs i.e Concealment of Income, Furnishing of Inaccurate

Sreenavaladian Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Centralcircle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1155/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Madras High court decision in Babuji Jacob Vs ITO (2021) in support of claim that defective penalty notice vitiates penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Hon'ble madras High court in above case has given a finding that facts of that case do not attract either 'concealment of Income' or inaccurate ... particulars of income' to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee has offered Explanation with regard to transaction on which penalty levied and during penalty proceedings itself, the assessee has raised objection wrt defective notice. But in the present case, both limbs i.e Concealment of Income, Furnishing of Inaccurate

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Cent Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1154/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Madras High court decision in Babuji Jacob Vs ITO (2021) in support of claim that defective penalty notice vitiates penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Hon'ble madras High court in above case has given a finding that facts of that case do not attract either 'concealment of Income' or inaccurate ... particulars of income' to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee has offered Explanation with regard to transaction on which penalty levied and during penalty proceedings itself, the assessee has raised objection wrt defective notice. But in the present case, both limbs i.e Concealment of Income, Furnishing of Inaccurate

Katyayani Jewels P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5359/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bajrang Soni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

hands. 6. The contention of the assessee did not find any favour with the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7, Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before

Rajesh Jain, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-40(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 8581/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] on account of addition of cash deposits in the bank. 3. The roots for levy

Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 917/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.917/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad, The Income Tax T.No.1, Vanai Apartment, V Officer, Gangapur Road, Behind S Nashik. Kulswamini Apart, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar-Ca, Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An 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 02.05.2023 Emanating From Penalty Order Dated 17.02.2022 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. The Ld.Authorised Representative(Ld.Ar) Of The Assessee Filed Written Submission. Vide Written Submission Ld.Ar Invited Our Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A] Attention To The Notice Dated 24.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 Issued By Assessing Officer(Ao) Which Was The First Notice With Reference To The Penalty. Ld.Ar In The Written Submission Explained That Nowhere In The Notice Section 271(1)(C) Is Mentioned. Nowhere In The Notice, The Assessing Officer Has Clarified, Whether It Is For Concealment Of Income Or For Filing Inaccurate Particulars.

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Court (supra), the Notice dated 24/03/2021 cannot be held to be proper legal notice for 6 Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A] initiation of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Therefore, the Penalty Order is bad in law. 4.6 In addition to this, we are hereby reproducing

Rupinder Kaur, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2002/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyarupinder Kaur, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 30, R-675, 1St Floor, New Delhi. New Rajinder Nagar, Central Delhi, New Delhi – 110 060. (Pan : Aaspk0367J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Order : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT (A) has passed the penalty order with the direction that the decision on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is 2 however subject to outcome/decision of the application filed by the assessee’s husband before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) owning