“ levy of penalty ”

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Ashok Pai v. CIT

812

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court

702

291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

565

216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya

511

122 ITR 306 · 1980 · High Court

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

CIT v. Manu Engg

505

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court

502

ITA 805/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

Judgments citing levy of penalty

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Palampur

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

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

orders of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi each dt. 26/10/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012- 13 & 2013-14 challenging the sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Since the common issues are involved in the both the above appeals, they were heard together ... facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs. 66,38,400/- for alleged concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Palampur

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

ITA 804/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1752/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1752/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.) ….....Appellant 12Th Floor, Unit 12B, Unimark Asian, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aancs7043M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. C. Jhawer, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rama Choudhary, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 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’) Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 26.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.19,81,896/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act Based On Information Received Regarding Bogus Ltcg On Sale Of Shares Of Banas Finance Ltd. It Was Alleged That The Assessee Purchased 55,000 Shares For Rs.30,11,800/- & Sold Them For Rs.10,05,950/- Booking A Loss Of Rs.20,05,850/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Concluded

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

held that Assessing Officer to make assessee aware in notice as to which of two limbs invoked against him for purposes of levy of penalty and striking off of irrelevant clause in notice is material. Respectfully following the judicial precedents supra, we cancel the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

H Venkatesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1669/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessment year 2015-16. 2. The only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Page 2 of 7 3. The brie facts of the case are that the assessee ... without making any further addition. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings in the assessment order and issued a show-cause notice for levying a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee filed a reply contending that he had not concealed any particulars of income

Muthurathinam, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1St Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Avypm 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate By Virtual. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Penalty Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Sought To Be Urged By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] By Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ In Short) In Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Has Satisfied That Penalty Proceeding Is Being Initiated Separately For “Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income” Where As Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 04.01.2022 Levied Penalty For “Concealment Of Income”, Although In The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1) (C), The Ao Has Marked The Specified Limb As “That You Have Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income”.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate by virtualFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

furnishing. inaccurate particulars of such income vide notice dated 28.09.2021 and an order under section 271(1)(c) dated 04.01.2022 was passed levying minimum penalty impossible of Rs.5,66,143 being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated ... particulars of income' was satisfied. Therefore, I hold that notice of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is valid and levy of penalty is also justified. 8.4 The case laws relied upon by the appellant are not useful to support his case, as the appellant's case

Union Bank of India, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 365/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan

ITA 364/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile- Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan

ITA 351/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan

ITA 350/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan

ITA 277/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant

Pristine Jewellery, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(2)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.277/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Pristine Jewellery Vs. The Ito, Plot No.20, Midc B/H Khanna Ward-1(2)(4), House, Road No.6, Andheri East, Surat Mumbai-400 096 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifp6894R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Unmesh Dalal, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2025

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

return of income. He also held that ignorance of law is not an excuse in the eyes of law. Therefore, he levied maximum penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- because the turnover was Rs.8,53,66,166/- and 0.5% of turnover was Rs.4,26,830/-. The assessee filed appeal against ... prescribed form duly signed and verified by such an Accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed. Section 271B mandates levy of penalty up to maximum of Rs.1,50,000/- but such penalty will not be imposable if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause of such

Gitanjali Chaitanya Guram, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 269SSection 271D

liable for penalty u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- is being levied as penalty u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” The assessee being aggrieved is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration ... transfer of immovable, which was prohibited by statute w.e.f. 01/06/2015. Since in the present case, the transaction has taken place before 01/06/2015, hence, levy of penalty is bad–in–law and not justified. Even otherwise also, there is nothing on record which suggest that the transaction is not genuine. Consequently

K M Bhangdiya (Jv), Nagpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12

ITA 346/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

ITA 345/NAG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

respectively. 2. In all the appeals, the only identical issue raised by the assessees is levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") except variation in figures. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned A.R., Shri Ashok Bansal, appearing

K M Bhangdiya (Jv), Nagpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

ITA 344/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

M G Bhangdiya and Hitbhav Engineers Jv, Nagpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

ITA 343/NAG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Mg Bhangdiya and Hitbhav Engineers Jv, Nagpur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke