← 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)

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 208/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &
Section 132(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

through the relevant assessment orders, penalty orders and submission of the appellant and the various case laws. 6.1 The AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) the I.T. Act 1961 in the case of appellant on the following reasons 1. The assessee declared additional income in the return ... income by the assessee or filing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee till the passing of assessment order. Before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act it is mandatory that the assessee is made aware of the specific charge against him for which the assessee

Shri Nanubhai Govindbhi Ahir, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(3), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 256/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Nanubhai Govindbhai Ahir, I.T.O., 143, Sultanabad, Dumas-Ambawadi, Ward-2(3)(3), Vs. Surat-394270. Surat. Pan: Atgpa 0140 A Appellant Respondednt

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.t. Act, 1961 of Rs. 28,63,562/- although addition on which penalty is imposed stands deleted by the Hon’ble Tribunal

Chevron Metal Products P Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-45, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 999/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 999/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chevron Metal बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle 8(2) Products Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 22-A Panton Bunder Road, Mumbai-400020. Near, Britannia Darukhana, Raey Road, Mumbai- 400010. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2190E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai Dated 21.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This Is Second Round Of Litigation. Since The Aforesaid Appeal Was Heard Along With Ita. Nos. 1000 & 1001/Mum/2022 & Order Pronounced On 29.11.2022, However, By Way Of An M.A, It Was Brought To Our Notice That We Have Not Passed The Order In Ita. No. 999/Mum/2022 For Ay 2011-12, So, We Have Recalled Our Order (Supra) For The Limited Purpose For Adjudicating The Penalty Appeal In Ita. No. 999/Mum/2022. Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Has Challenged The Penalty Levied By Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Issuing A Valid Notice

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

hereinafter “the Act”). The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without issuing a valid notice, 2 A.Y. 2011-12 Chevron Metal Products Pvt. Ltd. and for that has filed the copy ... have been spelled out without striking down the in-applicable faults on which assessee has been put to notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that assessee was in the dark as to what fault it has committed for which the AO proposed

DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum vs. Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai

ITA 2566/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied , penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied penalty

DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum vs. Shri Narendra S Shah, Mum

ITA 2315/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied , penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied penalty

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

ITA 2007/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied , penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied penalty

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 2006/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied , penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied penalty

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum

ITA 2005/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied , penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied penalty

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum

ITA 2004/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied , penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied penalty

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cen Cir-(2), Mumbai

ITA 2003/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied , penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, penalty has not been levied penalty

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajendra Rameshchandra Chaturvedi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 927/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat Is Quashed 2 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Instead Of Observing The Fact That The Department Had Challenged The Hon'Ble Itat Order Before The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court.”

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

Tribunal has deleted both the additions vide order dated 23/12/2020 in ITA No.7124 & 7581/Mum/2019. Once the quantum has been deleted, then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has no legs to stand. Otherwise also, this matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court in the quantum proceedings, but at this

Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 636/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri V. G. Ginde/ Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

have been spelled out without striking down the in-applicable faults on which assessee has been put on notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that assessee was in the dark as to what fault it has committed for which the AO proposed

Osgl Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9029/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. S. C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kr. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 [penalty u/s 271(1)(c)].” 4. On this issue, we are guided by the following judgments: 1) Karnataka High Court: CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory

Shri Lalit Kumar Kalwar, Sarwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 894/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Cit(A) erred in upholding the validity of order of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining

Meena Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 43(6), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1550/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Meena Singhal, Vs Ito, C-3/52,Rajashthali Apartment, Ward-43(6), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Acaps1872L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition of Rs. 3,45,482/- made on account of short term capital gain on sale of shares ... facts and in law in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact mere additions per se cannot be the basis for imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the said action

Sanjiv Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2673/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2673/Del/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Garg, Adv. &
Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on additions finally sustained at Rs.71,915/- on account of expenses of personal nature. ITA No. 2673/DEL/2018

Sanjiv Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2672/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2671 & 2672/Del/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Garg, Adv. &
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) of the Act for their respective assessment years and pointed out that the aforesaid show cause notices proposing imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is yet again bereft of any specific charge against the assessee. The AO has not cared to stike ... committed. The Ld. Counsel thus submits that in the absence of any satisfaction towards the exact nature of charge, the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is without sanction of law and thus request to be quashed. 5. The Ld. DR of the Revenue, on the other hand, relies

Sanjiv Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2671/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2671 & 2672/Del/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Garg, Adv. &
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) of the Act for their respective assessment years and pointed out that the aforesaid show cause notices proposing imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is yet again bereft of any specific charge against the assessee. The AO has not cared to stike ... committed. The Ld. Counsel thus submits that in the absence of any satisfaction towards the exact nature of charge, the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is without sanction of law and thus request to be quashed. 5. The Ld. DR of the Revenue, on the other hand, relies

Tirupati Reddy Mukku, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-27(3), Mumbai

ITA 857/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil NatekarFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

notice is issued in stereotyped manner and hence notice is vague and bad in law. 2. The learned assessing officer erred imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without properly recording the reasons to levy penalty in the assessment order and there is no clear-cut finding and crystallized charge being

Meera Saratchandran Nair, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 658/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Joginder Singh, D.R
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 157Section 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

LTCG 2) To allow exemption u/s 10[38] in respect of LTCG of Rs.2048190/- 3) To delete the interest u/s 234 and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) General:- • The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. • This appeal is filed