“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

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 Palghar, Thane

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7675/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

Income Tax Portal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 5000/- u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as the “Act”) for non-filing of return without appreciating the fact ... assessee. 41. In such circumstances, there existed reasonable cause and, in any event, no contumacious conduct can be attributed so as to justify levy of penalty. Consequently, the penalty orders passed under sections 271F, 272A(1)(d) and 271(1)(b), along with the corresponding appellate orders passed under section

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1, Palghar, Thane

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7674/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 159Section 271FSection 69A

Dc Motor Works Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7506/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 147Section 148Section 270A

explain the reasons for seeking condonation of delay as well as on the merits of the case. 5. ITA No. 7506/Mum/2025 relates to levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act pertaining to AY. 2019-20, which is again dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) ex-parte qua the assessee

Dc Motor Works Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO -9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7505/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 147Section 148Section 270A

Dc Motor Works Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7475/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 147Section 148Section 270A

Kishore Anand Shetty, Goregaon East Mumbai vs. Circle 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 4975/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

Since we have already deleted the addition under section 50C and allowed the exemption under section 54F, the very foundation for levy of penalty does not survive. It is a settled position that where the quantum additions forming the sole basis of penalty are deleted, the penalty cannot stand independently

Kishore Anand Shetty, Mumbai vs. Circle-32(2), Mumbai

ITA 4974/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kamal Shadija, Indore vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Epartment, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 637/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2020-21 Kamal Shadija Assessment Unit 156, Palsikar Colony, Income Tax Department बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Azsps4490H Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 57

maintaining the penalty of Rs. 91,168/- u/s 270A. Page 1 of 13 Kamal Shadija ITA No. 637/Ind/2025 – AY 2020-21 2. The levy of penalty u/s 270A is illegal and bad in law since there is no under reporting and mis-reporting of income. The assessee is paying interest ... loans was borrowed during the FY. Assessee stated that the claim was made correctly and mere rejection of claim does not call for levy of penalty. Assessee accordingly requested to drop the penalty.” However, the AO rejected assessee’s submission and imposed penalty of Rs. 91,169/- through Penalty Order

Vijayawada Tollway Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1468/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate

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

Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the solitary issue involved out of the grounds of the appeal of the assessee is on account of levy of penalty of Rs.3,74,31,109/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, the Ld. AR invited our attention ... proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits of the levy of penalty do not survive for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the same are not adjudicated upon and are kept open. 12. allowed. In the result

Chiragkumar Rajendrabhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

ITA 7132/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A K Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

before 13.04.2018”. However, the AO, on 30.03.2018 itself, passed the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying a penalty of Rs.70,00,000/- for concealment of income. 6. Though the Assessee challenged the validity of the penalty order by filing a first appeal before ... only on the legal aspects, such as non-mentioning of the clear charge/head in the notice under section 274 of the Act for levying the penalty, but also on merits, affirmed the penalty. However, the Ld. Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to modify the quantum of penalty in consequence

Chiragkumar Rajendrabhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

ITA 7131/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A K Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

Chiragkumar Rajendrabhai Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

ITA 7130/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A K Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

Jithender Reddy Polu, Nalgonda vs. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1493/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1493/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jithender Reddy Polu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nalgonda. Ward-1, Pan:Ahlpp6612R Suryapet. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Nagaraju, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/01/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 05/12/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR

Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

cash deposits submitted to the I TO Suryapet on 31/05/2019. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act without considering explanation to the Lr. ITO. 6. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time

Kalaiarasan Selvaraj, Salem vs. ITO, Ward 1(6), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Thereafter the AO initiated penalty u/s.271B of the Act for belated filing of TAR. Pursuant to the notice issued for levy of penalty, the assessee, inter alia, pleaded that TAR has been filed along with RoI on 12.09.2024 i.e. well before the assessment order was framed on 27.12.2024. Hence, pleaded ... filing of TAR falls in the period of exclusion (supra). Thus, we note that in this case, there is reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty as per Section 273B of the Act, which empowers authorities discretion not to levy penalty. Further, non-filing of TAR before the due-date

Sri Jssdj Educational Health and Charitable Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2918/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms.Nidhi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mr.K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl.CIT

Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271FSection 272A(2)(e)Section 274

Section 139 of the Act and since the assessee failed to do so, he issued show cause notice to the assessee for levy of penalty and thereafter is noted to have levied penalty of ₹2,41,500/- vide order dated 23.09.2024. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT ... have issued notice u/s.271F of the Act vide letter dated 03.05.2023 [DIN: ITBA/PNL/F/271F/2023-24/1052577901(1)]. Pursuant to notice, the assessee replied pleading for non-levy of penalty, citing reasonable cause i.e. the Auditor of the assessee’s Trust was diagnosed with cancer and therefore couldn’t upload the Tax Audit Report

Kk 238 P N Patty Veerakkal Pudur Paccs Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 2871/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.S. Senthil Kumar

Section 250Section 270A

assessee in accordance to law. Coming to the penalty appeal (supra), we note that the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of levy of penalty by noting inter-alia that assessee didn’t file any documents in support its grounds against levy of penalty (refer Para No.5.3) and also taking ... assessee not able to substantiate its claim and confirmed the penalty. The assessee is noted to have raised a legal issue against levy of penalty which reads as under: 3) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering that the Assessing Officer did not specify any particular

Kk 238 P N Patty Veerakkal Pudur Paccs Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 2870/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.S. Senthil Kumar

Section 250Section 270A

Aromatrix Flora (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2100/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), New Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding levy of penalty of Rs. 77,54,617/- on disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 2,33,44,909/- u/s 80IC of the Act. 1.1. That ... while upholding the levy of penalty, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act was bonafide wrong claim and not a false claim which was detected only during the course of assessment proceedings for subsequent assessment year

Amar Singh, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 602/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshamar Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 47/19-A, Krishna Puri, Ward-1(1)(1), Garhi Bhadoria Bodla, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bhyps9872H Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

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

only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned NFAC was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused

Satish Kumar Arora, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Agra

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 509/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 271A

only identical issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. ITA Nos. 504 to 509/AGR/2025 Satish Kumar Arora 3. I have ... Page 7 & 8 Page 7 & 8 Page 8 & 9 assessment 8 & 9 order at page 5. The dispute before me is the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act in respect of the aforesaid final additions sustained by the Tribunal. From the aforesaid chart, it is evident that