“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

D S R Infrastructureprivate Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle- 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 49/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Rice Mills. 17. The ld.CIT(A) in his order had recorded as under : “6. Decision : The issue in the present appeal is the levy of penalty u/ s. 271D of Rs. Rs.3,02,94,816/-. 28 Brief facts of the case are that a Search operation u/s. 132 was carried ... grounds of appeal, we would first like to adjudicate the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the levy of penalty u/s 271D in absence of recording of satisfaction in the body of the assessment order. 13. A perusal of the assessment order nowhere shows that

Ram Awatar Dhoot, Kolkata vs. Ward 22(4) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 91/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.91/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ram Awatar Dhoot…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 29B, Rabindra Sarani Floor, Room No.10E, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adepd7419F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, Self, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.14,94,407/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

basis of preponderance of probabilities, however, to attract the I.T.A. No.91/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ram Awatar Dhoot penal provisions of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the stricter yardstick of culpability is required to be established. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case

Sh. Anoop Kumar Gupta, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ajmer

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

ITA 939/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

sought adjournment on 07.05.2024 which is not considered. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,57,261/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT act. He has further erred in ignoring the fact that addition ... compute the disallowance of interest based on the facts argued in the quantum proceedings. In the meanwhile, ld. AO passed the order levying the penalty in the case of the assessee on the amount of Rs. 8,32,568/- for an amount of Rs. 2,57,261/-. 4. Aggrieved from

Virendrakumar Brijratan Mohatta, Mumbai vs. JCIT-19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3634/MUM/2024[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ravikanth PathakFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

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

pending for disposal. 2. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in levying of penalty of Rs. 21,79,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the Appellant has concealed the particulars of income. The Appellant submits that ... concealed particulars of any income justifying the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; hence, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) shall be deleted. 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record

Abbas Ismail Contractor, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1102/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAURI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

penalty, the sum equal to loan or deposit so taken or accepted. The only consequence of violation of 269SS is initiation and levy of penalty 4 M/s. Abbas Ismail Contractor u/s.271D. There is no provision for making any addition u/s.269SS. Otherwise also, if ld.AO has initiated penalty u/s. 271D

Mohit Garg, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 16, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 2571/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2570 & 2571/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

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

have heard the submissions made by rival sides, these two appeals are against ex-parte orders passed by the First Appellate Authority confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271 (l)(c) of the Act in AY 2016-17 and u/s. 271 AAB of the Act in AY 2017-18, respectively ... Delhi)]. Hence, penalty proceedings have to be adjudicated separately. Merely, for the reason that quantum addition has been upheld would not mean that levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is automatic. Taking into consideration entire facts of the case, without commenting on merits, we deem

Mohit Garg, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 16, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 2570/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2570 & 2571/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

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

Sanjeev Kumar, Utter Pradesh vs. DCIT, Central Circle -14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2017/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmasanjeev Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Ram Kutir, D. M. Central Circle-14, Colony, Road, New Delhi Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abbpk0132H

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapur, AdvFor Respondent: Shri t. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

Chl Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8776/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Chl Ltd, Vs. Acit, Hotel The Surya, Circle-16(1), New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacc2587M

For Appellant: Shri Satish Khosla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripthi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rukmani Wires Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-21(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5481/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarrukmani Wires Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, G-1087, Dsiidc Industrial Circle-1(2), Complex Area, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccr7552F

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 18Section 271(1)Section 46ASection 48

hereby dismissed as not pressed. Rukmani Wires Pvt. Ltd 3. Ground No. 1, 4, 6 and 7 are challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( C ) of the Act in the sum of Rs. 57,98,464/-. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available

Ankur Chabra Legal Heir Late Sh. Rajesh Chabra Prop. Ms Roshan Lal and Sons Moti Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 271A

present appeal, Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. “That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC amounting to Rs. 1,48,800/- by way of order dated 31.01.2024. 2. That the levy of penalty is otherwise invalid and illegal, since the order ... failed to appreciate that the quantum appeal was pending before the Hon'ble ITAT and, as such, the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s 271AAC could have been kept pending. 4. That the confirmation of levy of penalty is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

Sh. Saurabh Kaushik, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 312/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal., CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 194ISection 195Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

taking.a judicious view of the matter. In, result, we hold that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding levy of penalty u/s 234E of the Act. • Sh. Gurpreet Singh vs. The ACIT, TDS [ITAT, Chandigarh, ITA No. 526/CHD/ 2022 dtd. 15.09.2022] 5. Although there

Soma Textiles & Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/AHD/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2008-09

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

summary manner without dealing with the various contentions and supporting legal decisions relied upon by the appellant for non-levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. Return of income for the relevant Assessment Year was filed on 27.09.2008 declaring total loss of Rs.9

Pramod Kumar Saraf, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-22(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 683/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.683/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pramod Kumar Saraf...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 24, R. N Mukherjee Road, Mission Row, Kol-1. [Pan: Apkps6814F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 28, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.7,10,447/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There Was Large Scale Price Rigging Of Certain Scrips, Whereby, The Bogus Long-Term

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessment proceedings is concerned, the same can be made on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, however, to attract the penal provisions of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the stricter yardstick of culpability is required to be established. Considering the I.T.A. No.683/Kol/2024 Assessment Year

Svm Cera Private Limited, Gujrat vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1). Kolkata., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 974/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sanghai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

have heard the rival contentions and perused the records available on record. Assessee is aggrieved with the levy of penalty of ₹5 lacs under Section 271AAB (1) of the Act computed at the rate of 10% of the additional income of ₹ 50 lacs voluntarily disclosed during the course of search

Svm Cera Private Limited, Gujrat vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 973/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sanghai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Palavesakannu Palani, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tirunelveli

ITA 1578/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1575, 1576, 1577 & 1578/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2013-14,2015-16 & 2015-2016) Palavesakannu Palani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 28, Ram Nagar, Ward 1, Thiyagaraja Nagar, Tirunelveli. Palamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 002. [Pan: Awvpp 9442L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

which are mere estimated additions do not attract penalty u/s.271 (1) ( c) of the Act and it is not a fit case of levy of penalty. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Sri Saibaba Guest House vs. ITO ( ITA No.2784/Chny/2018, dated