“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

Sri. Sumeru Housing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1471/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Nagarajan, Director of the CompanyFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

from the present case. 7. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271 (l)(c). Amount of tax tax sought to have been evaded is Rs.15,96,563/-…..After careful consideration, a minimum penalty

Niraj Pratapbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2)(Formerly ITO, Ward-3(3)(3)), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 86/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.40,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating

Sharadchandra Dattatray Mulik, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kolhapur

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

ITA 619/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sharadchandra Dattatray Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Mulik, Kolhapur. Dattaashila Agencies, Gargoti Road, At Post Uttur, Tal. Ajra, Kolhapur- 416220. Pan : Aghpm1855G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Levying The Penalty U/S 271B A Sum Of Rs.1,50,000 Without Appreciating The Reasonable Circumstances Under Which Appellant Was Not Able To Get His Account Audited, As The Appointed Ca Has Discontinued The Audit Without An Intimation & Not Issued The Tax Audit Report, Under Such Circumstances Your Appellant Prays For Deletion Of Penalty.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 271BSection 44A

following grounds of appeal :- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Assessing Officer erred in levying the penalty u/s 271B a sum of Rs.1,50,000 without appreciating the reasonable circumstances under which appellant was not able to get his account audited ... Show Cause Notice (SCN) u/s 271B dated 15-10-2019 was issued requiring the assessee to submit his objections for proposed levy of penalty u/s 271B of the IT Act on or before 23-10-2019. Since there was no response from the assessee to this notice, the Assessing Officer

Barkha Khandelwal, Aggrieved Assessee, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Indore

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

ITA 85/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 68

effected partition between them, there can be no doubt that the erstwhile coparceners are entitled to prefer an appeal and question the levy of penalty. The members of the Tribunal erred in taking the view that after the division is effected between the members of the HUF none ... erstwhile coparceners are entitied to prefer an appeal and that the levy of penalty should stand. 3. In Mahindra Kumar Mohanlal vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax (1958) 33 ITR 360, a similar question arose for decision. Tendolkar J., delivering the judgment of the Bench, took the same view

Vijay M. Mistry Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. NFAC (Delhi) AO Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1105/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80I

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 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A ... Mistry Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT same was not considered and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee confirming the levy of penalty. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. That on facts

Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

ITA 681/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(5)

Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT In the month of October 2023, a show cause notice was mailed to the director for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He consulted his counsel for reply of the said notice. The counsel checked

ACIT, Amravati Circle, Amravati vs. Chandrapur Dist Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

viia) of the Act." The ratio laid down by the aforesaid decision squarely support the submission of appellant and considering the same, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified and unsustainable. 6.5 The aforesaid three decisions clearly indicate that the legal position ... case. The ratio laid down by the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts in case of appellant and considering the same, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified and unsustainable. 6.6 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Advaita Estate

The Ezhupunna Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Alappuzha vs. The ITO Ward 2, Alappuzha

ITA 125/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Girly Albert, Senior DRFor Respondent: Shri C.A. Jojo, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

also pointed out that there was no loss of revenue to the department. In spite of the above submissions, the AO confirmed the levy of penalty and therefore the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and also relied on the various orders of the Tribunal and prayed

Ushashree Kunjulekshmi Amma Raghavan Pillai, Kollam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kollam

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

ITA 973/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Anil D Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Senior DR

Section 143(3)Section 271B

also pointed out that there was no loss of revenue to the department. Inspite of the above facts, the AO confirmed the levy of penalty and therefore the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and also relied on the various orders of the Tribunal and prayed to allow

Sri Saradba Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1158/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1158/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Sri Saradha Logistics Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle-3(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai. Karpagam Avenue, Ra Puram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan: Aaact 9040 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 270A(2)

Saradha Logistics Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act”) to the tune of Rs.29,06,070/- on the disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.r.8D

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

this, it was submitted before the Learned CIT(A) that there was no undisclosed income in the case of the assessee and hence, levy of penalty was not justified. The Learned CIT(A) has not considered this submission of the assessee. The penalty deserves to be deleted. The assessee ... 271AAB(1)(c) are quoted below in order to bring on record that the requirements of this Section have not been met mandating levy of penalty. Penalty where search has been initiated. 271AAB. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1008/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271ASection 274Section 68

could be imposed. (CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565). 2. Two show-cause notices have been issued separately for levy of penalty – u/s 271 AAB(1)(a) and 271AAB(1)(c), which invalidates the levy of penalty. It is submitted that not only the Learned Assessing ... this, it was submitted before the Learned CIT(A) that there was no undisclosed income in the case of the assessee and hence, levy of penalty was not justified. The Learned CIT(A) has not considered this submission of the assessee. The penalty deserves to be deleted. 4. The return

P. Saji Textiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent.Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4868/MUM/2024[A.Y 2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr. DR

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

Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 (ITA No. 4473, 4472 & 4470/Mum/2023) has considered the issue of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act contended by the assessee and has held that no penalty could be levied when the addition ... reduced disallowance which is on an estimation basis. Therefore, there is merit in the submission of the ld. AR that the issue of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is covered by the above decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench. Respectfully following the above decision

Shailesh Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward, 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3662/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Sujatha P. Iyangar, Sr. A.R

Section 249Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Shah 2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 28.03.2016 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has levied a penalty of Rs.36,41,491/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs.1 ... Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the levy of penalty before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal, however, in spite of affording various opportunities by issuing notices/letters dated 19.04.2024, 01.05.2024, 22.05.2024 and 11.06.2024 by the Ld. Commissioner, made no compliance. Therefore the Ld. Commissioner by observing “that there was a delay

Sree Siva Chaitanya Agro Industries, Polamuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 256/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) Sree Siva Chaitanya Agro Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Industries, Ward-1, 3-81, Toorpu Peta, Polamuru, Kakinada. Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Acsfs5787Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

31/12/2021. In response, the assessee filed is reply dated 23/01/2022. However, the Ld. AO did not consider the submissions of the assessee and levied the penalty of Rs. 1,00,315/- ie., one-half percent of the total sales / turnover / gross receipts of Rs. 2,00,63,000/- as declared ... technical breach and admittedly, when such Tax Audit Report has been filed before the AO in scrutiny proceedings, the question of levying of penalty under section 271B of the Act does not arise. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that though there are so many precedents and settled case

Madina Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir. 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 806/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR

Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

brevity. 03. Perusal of grounds reveals that common grievance of the assessee is against the finding of learned CIT (A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the alleged failure to keep, maintain or retain books of accounts, documents, etc. Since ... learned AO alleged that the assessee failed to offer any explanation regarding maintenance of separate set of books and the documents and finally levied the penalty u/s 271A of the Act at ₹25,000/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), but failed to succeed