← All Phrases

“levy of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 2715,057 judgments

The decision most relied on for levy of penalty is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on levy of penalty

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

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
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“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.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

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
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

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
216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court
511
citing judgments

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
122 ITR 306 · 1980 · High Court
505
citing judgments

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.

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa
83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court
502
citing judgments

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

Jagruti Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Myt Parli Vaijnath, Vaijnath vs. ITO Ward 1(5) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2253/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N.C
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 80P

dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. 5. ITA No.2254/PUN/2024 is an appeal relating to A.Y. 2018-19 filed against the levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act at Rs.79,00,920/-. In the penalty proceedings as well, the assessee approached the ld.CIT(A) with delay

Jagruti Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Myt Parli Vaijnath, Parali Vaijnath vs. ITO Ward 1(5) Pune, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2252/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N.C
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 80P

dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. 5. ITA No.2254/PUN/2024 is an appeal relating to A.Y. 2018-19 filed against the levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act at Rs.79,00,920/-. In the penalty proceedings as well, the assessee approached the ld.CIT(A) with delay

Jayaprakash Asha, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 19(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2937/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2935, 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayaprakash Asha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 10, Selva Lakshmi Homes, V.V. Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Colony 4Th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Awzpa4594L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Lekha Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 06.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Appeal In Ita No. 2935/Chny/2024 Deals With Quantum Addition & The Appeals In Ita No. 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 Are Filed Against Order Under Section 207A

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194ASection 207ASection 69A

directed against confirmation of penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) of the Act. The provision of section 271AAC of the Act deals with levy of penalty for underreporting of income. Since the income determined by the Assessing Officer requires verification and quantum addition did not attain its finality

Jayaprakash Asha, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 19(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2936/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2935, 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayaprakash Asha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 10, Selva Lakshmi Homes, V.V. Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Colony 4Th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Awzpa4594L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Lekha Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 06.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Appeal In Ita No. 2935/Chny/2024 Deals With Quantum Addition & The Appeals In Ita No. 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 Are Filed Against Order Under Section 207A

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194ASection 207ASection 69A

directed against confirmation of penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) of the Act. The provision of section 271AAC of the Act deals with levy of penalty for underreporting of income. Since the income determined by the Assessing Officer requires verification and quantum addition did not attain its finality

Jayaprakrash Asha, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 19(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2935/CHNY/2024[2018-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2018-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2935, 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayaprakash Asha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 10, Selva Lakshmi Homes, V.V. Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Colony 4Th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Awzpa4594L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Lekha Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 06.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Appeal In Ita No. 2935/Chny/2024 Deals With Quantum Addition & The Appeals In Ita No. 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 Are Filed Against Order Under Section 207A

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194ASection 207ASection 69A

directed against confirmation of penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) of the Act. The provision of section 271AAC of the Act deals with levy of penalty for underreporting of income. Since the income determined by the Assessing Officer requires verification and quantum addition did not attain its finality

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 7/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

upon all the grounds taken by the assessee whether on merits or legal grounds. 11. So far as the penalty appeals relating to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act are concerned, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not duly conversant

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 6/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

upon all the grounds taken by the assessee whether on merits or legal grounds. 11. So far as the penalty appeals relating to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act are concerned, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not duly conversant

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 5/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

upon all the grounds taken by the assessee whether on merits or legal grounds. 11. So far as the penalty appeals relating to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act are concerned, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not duly conversant

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 416/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

upon all the grounds taken by the assessee whether on merits or legal grounds. 11. So far as the penalty appeals relating to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act are concerned, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not duly conversant

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 415/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

upon all the grounds taken by the assessee whether on merits or legal grounds. 11. So far as the penalty appeals relating to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act are concerned, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not duly conversant

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 414/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

upon all the grounds taken by the assessee whether on merits or legal grounds. 11. So far as the penalty appeals relating to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act are concerned, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not duly conversant

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 413/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

upon all the grounds taken by the assessee whether on merits or legal grounds. 11. So far as the penalty appeals relating to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act are concerned, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not duly conversant

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 412/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

upon all the grounds taken by the assessee whether on merits or legal grounds. 11. So far as the penalty appeals relating to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act are concerned, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not duly conversant

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 4/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

upon all the grounds taken by the assessee whether on merits or legal grounds. 11. So far as the penalty appeals relating to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act are concerned, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not duly conversant

Soni and Brothers, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 808/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.807 & 808/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Soni & Brother, Vs. The Ito, H-29, New Sardar Market, Dumbhai Ward – 2(3)(6), Patia, Surat - 395010 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawfs6792H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashish Bhoola, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025

Section 250Section 270A

No.807/SRT/2024 (supra). Since the matter has been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, there is no basis at all for levy of penalty u/s 271A of the Act. Hence, the penalty order does not survive and the resultant order of CIT(A) is quashed. We make it clear that

Soni and Brothers, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 807/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.807 & 808/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Soni & Brother, Vs. The Ito, H-29, New Sardar Market, Dumbhai Ward – 2(3)(6), Patia, Surat - 395010 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawfs6792H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashish Bhoola, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025

Section 250Section 270A

No.807/SRT/2024 (supra). Since the matter has been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, there is no basis at all for levy of penalty u/s 271A of the Act. Hence, the penalty order does not survive and the resultant order of CIT(A) is quashed. We make it clear that

Joel Jewellery Works, Thrissur vs. ITO WD-2(2), Thrissur

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

ITA 555/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Joel Jewellery Works .......... Appellant Chiyaram P.O., Thrissur 680006 [Pan: Aagfj1072R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(2), Thrissur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Jewellery. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 26.01.2017 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 5,00,140/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 10.12.2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

appellant cooperated with the Department in the assessment proceedings and has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 12,58,100/- vie order dated 26.06.2019. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the AO made

Shiva Speciality Yarns Ltd., Ludhiana vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ludhiana

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1049/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CA and Ms. Naina Gaba Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80

income tax. He should have assessed loss and commented, whether carry forward of losses is to be allowed. Subsequently, the assessee was levied huge penalty of Rs. 3,36,99,161/-under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23.03.2022 (Pg ) on the ground that assessee's return ... served the proper notice upon the assessee and has not gone through any of the details filed by the assessee before upholding the levy of penalty by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. 7. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section

Mr. Nateshan Sampath, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1779/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh G., A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 274

admitted the said disallowances. Further, the ld. CIT(A) noticed that assessee’s case does not fall in the exceptions provided in levy of penalty and no immunity from the levy of penalty is applicable to the fact of the assessee’s case. Therefore, the penalty was rightly levied ... applicable but on the other hand calculated the penalty on under reported income of Rs.91,47,331/- but levied the penalty @ 200% for the mis reporting of income. We could not understand when AO himself observed that under reported income is Rs.91,47,331/- then how he has levied penalty

Nileshkumar Kishorchandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 969/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 271(1)(c)

short). By the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee thereby reducing the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs.3,49,497/-. 2. Today, the appellant has filed an application seeking to withdraw