“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

Gmw Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1850/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1850/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Gmw Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 885, G.I.D.C. Estate, Income Tax Vs. Makarpura, Vadodara, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara Gurarat - 390010 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg4508Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Surendra Modiani, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr 19/12/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 03/01/2025 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 30.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 In The Matter Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270A

270A of the Act was initiated by the AO in respect of this addition. The initiation of penalty is sine qua non for levy of penalty and the AO could not have levied the penalty without initiating the penalty proceeding in respect of this addition. In the show cause notice ... bona-fide mistake admitted by the assessee and there was no intention on the part of the assessee to misreport its income. Therefore, levy of penalty in respect of this addition was also not justified. 9. With regard to third addition of penalty charges, the penalty debited by the assessee

Modesty Garments, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2574/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Modesty Garments Vs Jcit B-304, New Friends Colony Range-28(1) New Delhi-110025. New Delhi Pan-Aaafm1598F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca Shri Nitin Sharma, Ca & Shri Neeraj Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.01.2025

Section 250Section 269T

presumed to be repayment in cash in violation of s.269T of the Act. In response to the show cause notice issued towards proposed levy of penalty under s. 271E for alleged violation of provision of s. 269T, the assessee submitted before the AO that repayments were made to the partners ... assessee in the given facts and circumstances of the case, penalty shall not be levied as an automatic incidence. Therefore, the levy of penalty under s. 271E is not mandatory but directory in nature. 6.1. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in Shrepak Enterprises vs DCIT

Malcolm Darayes Pestonji, Vasai, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3431/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (Sr. DR)

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

that the authority who is satisfied about the initiation of penalty proceedings, is required to initiate penalty proceedings and only that authority can levy the penalty. He went on to hold that in the present case, the satisfaction for initiation of penalty u/s 270A with regard to the amount ... ld.CIT(A) without assuming a valid jurisdiction, the P a g e | 8 A.Y. 2018-19 Malcolm Darayes Pestonji levy of penalty therefore, is vitiated and is held bad in law. We therefore, quash the penalty order of the ld. CIT(A).No adjudication of other grounds is required

M/S Alphonsa Timbers and Traders Private Limited, Maradu vs. ITO(TDS), Kochi

In the result, ITA Nos.241 & 242/COCH/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA Nos

ITA 242/COCH/2024[AY 2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(7)Section 221(1)

involving similar issues are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. ITA Nos.928 & 929/COCH/2022 are with respect to levy of penalty u/s. 221(1) of the Act for failure to collect tax at source for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14. The coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.927 & 930/COCH/2022

M/S Alphonsa Timbers and Traders Private Limited, Maradu vs. ITO(TDS), Kochi

In the result, ITA Nos.241 & 242/COCH/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA Nos

ITA 241/COCH/2024[AY 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(7)Section 221(1)

St. Alphonsa Timbers and Traders Private Ltd, Kochi vs. ITO(TDS), Kochi

In the result, ITA Nos.241 & 242/COCH/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA Nos

ITA 929/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(7)Section 221(1)

St. Alphonsa Timbers and Traders Private Ltd, Kochi vs. ITO (TDS), Kochi

In the result, ITA Nos.241 & 242/COCH/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA Nos

ITA 928/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(7)Section 221(1)

Dr. Murugesh Shantveerya Hiremath, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(5), Pune

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

ITA 1558/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1558/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dr. Murugesh Shantveerya Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(5), Hiremath, Pune. 1126/B, Model Colony Road, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aadph0605H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. R. Bhagwat Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Learned Cita Nfac Erred In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act Even Though The Tax Payer Had A Reasonable Cause For Not Getting His Accounts Audited For The Relevant Previous Year. 2) The Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- Imposed Under Section 271B Be Cancelled. 3) Such Other Orders Be Passed As Deemed Fit & Proper.

For Appellant: Shri M. R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 271BSection 44A

assessment year 2018-19. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) The learned CITA NFAC erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act even though the tax payer had a reasonable cause for not getting his accounts audited ... section 271B. 8 4. In view of our discussion, we are of the opinion that CIT(A) was not right in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271B. Penalty is directed to be deleted. 5. Appeal by the assessee is allowed.” 9. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision passed

Subramaniam Santhanam, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 2568/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2568/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Subramaniam Santhanam Ito 29/50, Aishwaryam Garden, Ward-1(2) बनाम 1St Street, Near St.Paul’S School, Tirupur. / Vs. Kng Pudur Pirivu, Coimbatore-641 025. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Asips-1371-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

estimated u/s 44AD. In our considered opinion, penalty could not be levied on estimation of income. It is not a fit case for levy of penalty. We order so. 4. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 2nd January, 2025 (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) "ाियक सद! / JUDICIAL

Satwik Feeds, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 35(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1064/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153A

Sumit Jindal Vs.The Dy. C.I.T ITA No. 450/DEL/2023 [A.Y 2019-20] 12. In this assessee’s appeal, the issue is with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271B. Grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law by confirming the penalty ... books of account audited within the stipulated time. Therefore in my considered opinion this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271B of Income Tax Act and there is no justification for the undersigned to interfere with the order of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the order imposing penalty

Ektalis Gam Patidar Development Foundation, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1867/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), confirming the levy of penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for non- responding to the statutory notice issued ... 272A(1)(d) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the same, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the levy of penalty. 4. Aggrieved against the same, assessee is in appeal before us raising the solitary ground that Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding penalty levied

Mauli Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee

ITA 1366/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

involves issue of penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), ITA.No.1365/PUN./2024 relates to levy of penalty u/sec.271(1)(b) of the Act and ITA.No.1366./PUN./2024 involves an ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the quantum appeal

Mauli Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee

ITA 1365/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Mauli Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee

ITA 1364/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Vicky Prasad Shaw, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 47(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2142/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. ITA No. 2141/Kol/2024 is relating to the quantum addition, whereas, ITA No. 2142/Kol/2024 is against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. First, we take up ITA No. 2141/Kol/2024. ITA No. 2141/Kol/2024: 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel

Vicky Prasad Shaw, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 47(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2141/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

C.Vijayalakshmi, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1599/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Imposing Of Penalty Was Invalid, Because, It Didn'T Specify The Exact Fault On Which The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied & Drew Our Attention To Show Cause Notice Issued By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) R.W.S.274 Of The Act Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2012-13, Which We Perused & Will Adjudicate This Legal Issue. 3. As Discussed, The Assessee Has Assailed The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Penalty Was Imposed By Ao According To Assessee Without Having Jurisdiction. According To Assessee, The Ld.Cit(A) While Passing The Impugned Order Has Not Considered The Fact That The Notice Issued By The Ao Before Imposition Of The Penalty Didn'T Specify The Exact Fault On Which The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied I.E. Whether The Assessee Had Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Or Have Concealed The Income & Hence Notice Is Bad In Law, Which Vitiates Levy Of Penalty. 4. In Respect Of The Aforesaid Legal Issue, First Of All We Have Perused The Show Cause Notice (Scn) Issued By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 Of The Act Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2012-13 By Virtue Of Which The Ao Gave Notice To The Assessee 'As To Why The Penalty Should Not Be Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Or Not? On Perusal Of Of The The Impugned Scn Dated :: 3 ::

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

whether the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or have concealed the income and hence notice is bad in law, which vitiates levy of penalty. 4. In respect of the aforesaid legal issue, first of all we have perused the show cause notice (SCN) issued ... consistently held such notices to be bad in law for not specifying the specific fault for which the assessee being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts including the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court

ITO (It), Ward 2(1), Chennai vs. Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1326/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1), #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.SamyukthaFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

passing of impugned order. Under these circumstances, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and restore the issue of levy of penalty back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. All the issues are kept open except for the argument

Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Number 2147 Thamallackal, Alappuzha vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 729/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 8. Since the quantum appeal is restored, the appeal challenging levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in ITA No. 726/Coch/2024 is restored back to the AO. 9. In the result, the appeals filed

Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Number 2147 Thamallackal, Alappuzha vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 728/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69