“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 Kailash Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 716/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR

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

treating the appellant to be in default u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and consequently erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 12480/-. 2.i.In doing so, he did not appreciate that the evidence & the details furnished and the submissions made in the course of assessment/ penalty/ appeal ... brought on record as to how the particulars furnished were not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous warranting levy of penalty. 3. Further in doing so, the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate that merely because the ITO was not satisfied with the explanation given

Lumis Biotech Private Limited, Tardeo vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 7(1)(1), Ayakar Bhavan

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

ITA 493/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(2)(AB)

Rs.52,05,828/- under the head “weight deduction” u/s 35(2)(AB) and foreign travel expenses. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the levy of penalty, however, in spite of giving various opportunities by the Ld. 2 M/s. Lumis Biotech Private Limited Commissioner, the Assessee failed to respond ... decided the appeal of the Assessee by passing impugned order as ex- parte and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by upholding the levy of penalty. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. The Assessee has submitted that due to finalising the accounts and audits, the Accounting

M/S Mascot Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2737/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mascot Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer 2(2)(3), 3Rd Floor, Indian Mercantile Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chambers, 14R, Kamani Marg, Mumbai-400020. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aaccm 6531 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas Bhat

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

facts and circumstances of the case, Commissioner of Income es of the case, Commissioner of Income - Tax Appeals (the CIT Appeals)erred in levying the penalty of Rs. 13,65, Tax Appeals (the CIT Appeals)erred in levying the penalty of Rs. 13,65, Tax Appeals (the CIT Appeals)erred ... levying the penalty of Rs. 13,65, 104/ - notappreciatingthefactthat the additions are made by invoking notappreciatingthefactthat the additions are made by invoking notappreciatingthefactthat the additions are made by invoking deeming provision of Section 50C of the Act on sale of reversionary deeming provision of Section

Totalenergies Marketing Services, France, Mumbai vs. DCIT, (Tp)-4(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2550/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J. Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271GSection 274ASection 92CSection 92D(3)

with this submission. 2.3 The AO though considered the afforested contentions raised by the Assessee, however not being convinced with the same, ultimately levied the penalty of Rs.98,89,964/- u/s 271G of the Act, by holding as under: “That the details were filed by the Assessee only after ... days and therefore attracted the penalty u/s 271G of the Act. Therefore, he is satisfied that this is a fit case to levy the penalty and accordingly the Assessee is directed to pay an amount of Rs.98,89,964/- being 2% of the relevant transactions of Rs.49

Litura Electrical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD), Circle-10(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1804/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

therefore no penalty is leviable. The AO not being impressed by the contention of the Assessee, vide penalty order dated 27.03.2018 ultimately levied the penalty to the tune of Rs.10,82,326/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs.36,07,752/- for concealment ... income and filing of inaccurate particulars of income. 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the levy of penalty before the Ld. Commissioner and mainly emphasized that the Assessee, during the course of quantum proceedings, has duly submitted the following documents in support of purchases made: 3 M/s. Litura Electrical Technologies

Rajesh Gala, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1133/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

Learned Addl. Commissioner and National Faceless Appeal Centre, erred on facts, in law and under the circumstances in Assessment Year: 2016-17 levying the penalty u/s 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 even when such penalty proceedings were not initiated in the assessment order passed for the concerned assessment year ... time of hearing of the above appeal.” 2 Assessment Year: 2016-17 3. All the grounds raised in the present appeal pertain to levy of penalty of INR 2,96,60,000/- under Section 271D of the Act on account of failure on the part of the Appellant to comply

Century Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vadodara vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Present Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 867/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 867/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Century Pharmaceuticals Ltd., बनाम Assessment Unit, 406, World Trade Centre, Income Tax Department Vs. Sayajigunj, Vadodara Represented Through Gujarat-390005 Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda Pan: Aaacc 7646 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Shri M.J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr Dr ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 26.02.2024, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.1,50,000/- U/S 271B Of The Act, For Delayed Furnishing Of Tax Audit Report As Required U/S 44Ab Of The Act, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Descriptive & Argumentative In Nature. I Am, Therefore, Reproducing Only The Highlighted Portion Of The Grounds Of Appeal Which Are As Follows:- “1. On The Facts & On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of Your Appellant’S Case & In Law, The Honorable Cit-Appeals (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao Of Invoking Provision Of Section 271B, In Our Case After The Six Years By Violating The Provision Of The Section 275(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr DR

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 275(1)Section 44A

under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short referred to as “the Act”] dated 26.02.2024, confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Act, for delayed furnishing of Tax Audit Report as required u/s 44AB of the Act, pertaining to Assessment Year

Ramareddy Dasharatha, Lakshmisagara Neralur Post vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 873/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 263Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

assessee. Subsequently, the assessee was issued show cause notice on 11/06/2019 in respect of violation of provisions of sec.269SS that attract levy of penalty u/s. 271D. In response to the same the assessee submitted reply on 18/06/2019. After considering the details submitted by the assessee, the Ld.AO passed penalty order

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1812/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

addition on account of disallowance of purchase should be made. The assessee has request to consider the case amicably. Assessee plead for non-levy of penalty of prosecution as consent letter is given to buy peace of mind and avoid further litigation cost, since the assessee has submitted

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1766/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Tushar Jayantilal Lakhani, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC

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

ITA 4709/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh: A.Y : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Tushar J. LakhaniFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

debts, since it did not have any tax effect. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings subsequently and 2 Tushar Jayantilal Lakhani fearing levy of penalty, he took steps to file the appeal. Accordingly, it was submitted that the delay in filing appeal was neither intentional nor wanton one. Accordingly

Neetu Gupta, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

ITA 208/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

issued on 20.11.2018 and in the event of non-responding the same, thereafter, notice U/s 274 r/w section 271 of the Act for levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued by the learned AO, because of alleged non- response of by the assessee / appellant, after

The Jt.CIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 267/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

considered the quantum appeal of the assessee, wherein the quantum disallowance of alleged bogus purchases was restricted to 5% thereby confirmed the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) to 5% of the bogus purchase namely Rs.3,17,216/- by observing as follows: 5.3 After considering all facts and circumstances ... only. Therefore, these grounds of appeals are partly allowed. 6. Aggrieved against the same, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The A.O. levied the penalty, since the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the entire bogus purchase, which is later restricted to 5% by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal

Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, Amravati vs. Shri Mahesh Shankar Sorate, Daryapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 250/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269TSection 271E

Apex Court squarely applies in the present case following which we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) deleting the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act amounting to Rs.6,95,60,000/-." 3) Judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "F" Bench, Mumbai vide ITA No.5668 & 5669/Mum/2013 ... Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills reported in (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC), dealing with the levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act, has held that if there is no satisfaction recorded in the order of assessment regarding initiation of penalty proceedings

Nunepally Suresh, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 664/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Joshi, C.A. appeared for Shri M. ChandramoleswaraFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

levy of concealment penalty and confirming the same in the case of the appellant.” 10. This appeal is filed on account of the levy of penalty. It was submitted by the ld.CIT(A) in paras 5.2 and 5.3 that since the additions have been upheld in the hands

Nunepally Suresh, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 663/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Joshi, C.A. appeared for Shri M. ChandramoleswaraFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

M/S. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

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

orders of CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16, both are dated 30.11.2023, wherein he has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) at Rs.10,50,340/- & Rs.1,70,08,720/- respectively ... sought to be evaded, was levied. 2.4 Against this assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against this assessee is in appeal before us by way of following grounds: 1. The order passed by the Learned

Pooja Ganesh Borhade, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Rang 2 Kalyan, Mumbai

The Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4861/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

short) for assessment year (A.Y. in short) 2015-16. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is whether levy of penalty for violation of provisions of section 269T is correct or not. 2. From the Ld. CIT(A) order it can be seen that the appellant has accepted ... with the direction to take all the material on record and give an opportunity to decide the matter afresh with respect to levy of penalty. Before concluding this order, it is observed that the appellant was provided with several opportunities before

Pooja Ganesh Borhade, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Rang-2 Kalyan, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4860/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

penalty with the direction to take all material on record and give an opportunity and decide the matter afresh with respect to levy of penalty u/s. 271E of the Act. From the paper book filed before this Bench, it is observed that the appellant was provided with seven opportunities