← 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

Asstt. CIT Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Zain Alam, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 237/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

respect of income from trading of goat and bovine animals to the tune of Rs.2,28,66,000/- and vide order dated 23.03.2022 levied a penalty under section 271AAB of the Act on the amount of Rs.2,28,66,000/- with an observation that this was surrendered amount and hence ... penalty order as to how the alleged income would come within the definition of undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Whereas the assessee has neither surrendered any income in the statement recorded u/s ITA No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023

Asstt.CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Zaina Fatima Ahmad, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 236/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

respect of income from trading of goat and bovine animals to the tune of Rs.2,28,66,000/- and vide order dated 23.03.2022 levied a penalty under section 271AAB of the Act on the amount of Rs.2,28,66,000/- with an observation that this was surrendered amount and hence ... penalty order as to how the alleged income would come within the definition of undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Whereas the assessee has neither surrendered any income in the statement recorded u/s ITA No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023

Asstt.CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Shaheen Rabia, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 235/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

respect of income from trading of goat and bovine animals to the tune of Rs.2,28,66,000/- and vide order dated 23.03.2022 levied a penalty under section 271AAB of the Act on the amount of Rs.2,28,66,000/- with an observation that this was surrendered amount and hence ... penalty order as to how the alleged income would come within the definition of undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Whereas the assessee has neither surrendered any income in the statement recorded u/s ITA No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023

Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Mehtab Alam, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 234/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

respect of income from trading of goat and bovine animals to the tune of Rs.2,28,66,000/- and vide order dated 23.03.2022 levied a penalty under section 271AAB of the Act on the amount of Rs.2,28,66,000/- with an observation that this was surrendered amount and hence ... penalty order as to how the alleged income would come within the definition of undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Whereas the assessee has neither surrendered any income in the statement recorded u/s ITA No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023

Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Tabrez Alam, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 233/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

respect of income from trading of goat and bovine animals to the tune of Rs.2,28,66,000/- and vide order dated 23.03.2022 levied a penalty under section 271AAB of the Act on the amount of Rs.2,28,66,000/- with an observation that this was surrendered amount and hence ... penalty order as to how the alleged income would come within the definition of undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Whereas the assessee has neither surrendered any income in the statement recorded u/s ITA No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023

Patel Kenwood Private Limited, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.62/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Patel Kenwood Pvt.Ltd. The Ito बनाम/ Plot No.100 To 103 Ward-2(1)(1) V/S. Timber Market Vadodara Gidc Ankleshwar Ankleshwar – 393 002 Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccp 0220 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Nilisha Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Nilisha Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(8)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] on 21.11.2023, confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.1,66,080/- under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the Assessment Year ... under-reporting of income in the nature of misreporting and issued penalty notices. The AO, being unsatisfied with the assessee’s explanations, levied a penalty of Rs.1,66,080/- under section 270A(8) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the impugned

Mohhamad Wajahat Ali Khan, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 848/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 848/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

finality, whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer for both the A.Y is income of the assessee or not, the question of levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-furnishing of return of income for both the A.Ys does not arise. The learned Counsel for the assessee ... provisions of section 272A(1)(d) of the Act and levied penalty for non-furnishing of return of income. As regards the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), the learned DR submitted that it is a clear case of non-compliance of the statutory notices issued

Makashood Asharaf, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Makashood Asharaf, 98-Moh. The Income Tax Officer, Seikh Sarain, Kheri Town, Distt.- Vs. Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri- Lakhimpur Kheri-1 (U.P.) 1 Pan:Bkwpa9250R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.07.2022 Upholding The Penalty Levied Under Section 271B By The Ito-3(4), Lakhimpur-1 Vide His Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

default was apparent, he held that penalty under section 271B was clearly attracted in this case. It was, therefore, a fit case for levy of penalty. Since the half percent of turnover amounted to Rs.2,76,135/-, he imposed a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-, which was the lower amount ... initiation in the course of assessment proceedings was not necessary within the meaning of section 275(1)(c). He, therefore, upheld the levy of penalty and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the said dismissal, the assessee has come before us. Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. (hereinafter referred

Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 92/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 92/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-3(1), Pan: Aecpa4464Q Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

Penalty U/s. 271AAC@10% of the Tax payable U/s. 115BBE(1)(i) Rs. 1,45,860 Thus, the Ld. AO levied the penalty U/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act of Rs. 1,45,860/- and passed order dated 7/1/2022. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the Ld. AO, the assessee ... delay sought for. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered and decided the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant against levy of penalty U/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act on merits without dismissing the appeal in limine. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have seen that

Babul Products Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Babul Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Urmin House, Sindhu Bhawan Income-Tax, Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Circle-1(1)(1), Gujarat-380054 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabcb 1866 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

short] dated 22.04.2023 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], confirming the levy of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.2,36,762/- for the Assessment Year ... worked for the assessee-company not being disputed; the disallowance therefore of the salary paid to them was a mere estimation warranting no levy of penalty for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, countered by saying that though the rendering