“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

Ashok Goyai, Himachal Pradesh vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2779/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2779/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2013-14) Ashok Goyal H.No. 228/48, Ward No. 11, Devi Nagar (115), Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh 173025 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Abepg-4250-F

For Appellant: Ms. Tanya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Noida (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 02.04.02024, for assessment year 2013-14 confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2 2. Ms. Tanya, appearing on behalf ... computing total income. Where no addition has been made or no amount is disallowed in 5 computing total income, the machinery provision for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act would not get ignited. Hence, where the returned income and assessed income are same, penalty

Baldevbhai Lalabhai Luhar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Pratyakshar Bhavan, Ahmedabad

In the result, the ground no

ITA 888/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

deleted. 3. In law, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in initiating the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) when Baldevbhai L Luhar vs. ITO Asst.Year 2015-16 - 2– no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings are wrongly initiated

Dwarka Gems Limited, Jaipur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 847/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO of levying the penalty even though the AO has not specified the limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act under which penalty was sought ... imposing penalty of Rs.13,945/- by brushing aside the submission of assessee that addition/ disallowance does not automatically result in levy of penalty. Appellant prays penalty levied mechanically by solely relying upon conclusion drawn in assessment proceedings deserves to be deleted. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that

B M Manjunatha Gupta, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Shivamogga

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

ITA 1276/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri Joseph Varghese, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 133ASection 250Section 271Section 274

Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate the fact that there was no concealment nof furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income warranting levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271 of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income ... Appeals] failed to appreciate the fact that the levy of penalty is not automatic and the learned assessing officer ought to have exercised his discretion before levying penalty, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the penalty

Bharat Hirachand Jain, Thane vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Thane

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3873/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. Pritpal SinghFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok

3877/Mum/2024, 3875/Mum/2024 and 3872/Mum/2024 are three separate appeals by the assessee preferred against three separate orders of NFAC, Delhi relating to levy of penalty in respect of the quantum addition pertaining to Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 3. The captioned appeals were heard together

Shripal Bhawarlal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3757/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Miss. Padmavathy S. () Shripal Bhawarlal Jain Vs Dcit, Mumbai, Flat No.4, 2Nd Floor, Surya Apartments Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400 051 Vp Road,Andheri West, Mumbai-400 058 Pan: Adkpj1987G Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 158BSection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act on the appellant at Rs. 8,24,413/-. 2 The learned CIT (A) erred in levy of penalty even though the appellant has submitted all the information and explanations required for the purpose of assessing the income of the appellant ... dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the search was initiated under section 132(4) with it include accommodation entries. The levy of penalty under section 158BFAof the Act was justified. The Ld.CIT(A) also relied on the order of co- ordinate bench of ITAT-Jaipur

Laburnum Mahindra Gardens Co Op Hsg Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3657/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Nara a/w. Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Akhatar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

which is consequential. Therefore, the same needs no separate adjudication. 9. The issue arising in ground no. 3 pertains to the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act, which is premature at this stage. Therefore, ground no. 3 is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal

ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi vs. Swadesh Kumar Mishra, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

ITA 6043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 145(3)Section 24Section 40Section 40A(3)

there was no response from the assessee, he proceeded to finalise the penalty proceedings by treating the assessee as ‘Assessee in default’ and levied a penalty of 27 ITA Nos.6810/Del/2019 & Ors. Swadesh Kumar Mishra vs. ACIT Rs. 10,44,255/- u/s 140A(3) r.w.s ... same is liable to be quashed. 2. That the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in levying the penalty of Rs.10.44,255/- by applying the provisions of section 140A(3) r.w.s 221(1), of the Act, which is illegal and liable to be deleted

Paranjape Pendse Associates, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Pune

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

ITA 1145/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.57,69,152/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... Order ROI Total 1,67,68,143 1,65,18,143 2,50,000 8. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of adhoc disallowance is not in accordance with law and therefore, the same should

Ms Rajmal Lakhichand, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1206/PUN/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Rajmal Lakhichand, Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon. 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aacfr8609L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1) That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.62,95,800 U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Penalty Be Cancelled. 2) Gross Profit Addition

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak

Section 142Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

erred in placing reliance upon cases facts of which are distinguishable while ignoring the decisions relied upon by the appellant. 4.3 THAT the levy of penalty without specifying the charge as to whether it is for concealing income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and without striking ... architect for guest house renovation was treated as capital expenditure and disallowed accordingly, but in a situation like this, question of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise. In this regard, it was the contention of LD AR that the facts relating to the issue were disclosed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Alwar vs. Man Mohan Krishna, Alwar

18. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed

ITA 503/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh , (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 270ASection 40

case where books of 4 ACIT Vs. Man Mohan Krishna accounts of the assessee were rejected, and as such, no levy of penalty was called at all. In support of his submission, Ld. AR has also referred to clause (b) sub-section(6) of Section 270A of the Act. Analysis ... observed in the penalty order that since the assessee had declared loss in the income tax return, it was a case calling for levy of penalty under sub-section (7) of Section 270A of the Act. 13. In the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the assessee has presented before

Mr. Rakesh Heeralal Ameta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward. 33(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 3210/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. Paresh KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SANDEEP SINGH

Raghubir Singh Punia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 30(8), New Delhi.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2252/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 127Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as much as in fact in holding that issue regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is premature, therefore, need not be to adjudicated. 11. That under the facts and circumstances of the case

Adani Green Energy Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1002/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1002/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Adani Green Energy Limited The Principal Cit Adani Corporate House बनाम/ Ahmedabad-1 Shantigram 15, S.G. Highway V/S. Near Vaishno Devi Circle Khodiyar B.O., Khodiyar Ahmedabad – 382 421 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanca 1814 G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Dated 16-03-2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. Adani Green Energy Limited Vs. Pr.Cit Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

case of Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd.(supra) is concerned, it is crucial to note that this decision deals with the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and the retrospective applicability of amendments regarding penalties. The principles laid down in Gold Coin Health Food

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Emami Realty Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 967/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 967/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,...……Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Emami Realty Limited,……………………..……Respondent 13Th Floor, Acropolis 1858/1, Rajdanga Main Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal [Pan: Aalcs5120P] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 09, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

impugned order that penalty has been deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the ground that addition, which is the foundation for levy of penalty, has already been deleted in the quantum appeal. The finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in this regard reads as under:- “In the instant case

Sh. Prem Singh Saini, Sikar vs. Addl. CIT, Sikar

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

ITA 952/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271D

inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are identical except the difference in the amount of levy of penalty and the default of the other section of the Act. The ld. DR did not raise any specific objection against taking that case ... 951/JP/2024 on the following grounds; “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 8,47,900/- u/s 271D of the Act. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend & modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost

Sh. Prem Singh Saini, Sikar vs. Addl. CIT, Sikar

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

ITA 951/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271D

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd Sangli, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle- Sangli, Sangli

ITA 1101/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 269ASection 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

quantum of sec.271D penalties levied by the lower authorities. 4. We noticed in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities have levied sec.271D penalties in assessee, a cooperative society(ies)’s case; on the ground that it had taken cash deposits from it’s members; which in turn ... will depend upon the nature of default. If it is merely technical or venial breach, no penalty would be impossible because the levy of penalty would necessarily implies existence of some guilty intention on the part of the defaulter or the offender. In order to determine the existence or absence

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd Sangli, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle- Sangli, Sangli

ITA 1100/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 269ASection 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle- Sangli, Sangli

ITA 1099/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 269ASection 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B