← 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

Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 124/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-1(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-2(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 24/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

124/Viz/2024 which is adjudicated in the foregoing paras of this order. The core issue involved in the appeal (ITA No. 123/Viz/2024) is the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,64,51,117/- by the Ld. AO U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide the order dated 13/09/2022. Against

Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 123/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-1(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-2(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 24/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

124/Viz/2024 which is adjudicated in the foregoing paras of this order. The core issue involved in the appeal (ITA No. 123/Viz/2024) is the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,64,51,117/- by the Ld. AO U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide the order dated 13/09/2022. Against

Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sikar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 782/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.S.Seethalakshmi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781 & 782/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2015-16 Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, The Income Tax Kalani & Co, Chartered V Officer, Accountants, 5Th Floor, S Ward-1, Sikar. Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015. Pan: Agmps6843H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P.C.Parwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh–Addl.Cit(Ar) Date Of Hearing 23/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E.Mr.Sanjay Sharma Against Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Both Dated 29.04.2024 For A.Y.2015-16, One Emanating From The Assessment Order U/Sec.147 Dated 27.03.2023

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

application filed by the assessee giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal and thereby not deciding the appeal on merit relating to levy of penalty of Rs.63,69,069/- u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts ... application filed by the assessee giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal and thereby not deciding the appeal on merit relating to levy of penalty of Rs.63,69,069/- u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act. Facts & Submission:- 1. The assessee is a Non-Resident Indian. He is carrying

Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sikar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 781/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.S.Seethalakshmi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781 & 782/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2015-16 Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, The Income Tax Kalani & Co, Chartered V Officer, Accountants, 5Th Floor, S Ward-1, Sikar. Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015. Pan: Agmps6843H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P.C.Parwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh–Addl.Cit(Ar) Date Of Hearing 23/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E.Mr.Sanjay Sharma Against Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Both Dated 29.04.2024 For A.Y.2015-16, One Emanating From The Assessment Order U/Sec.147 Dated 27.03.2023

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

application filed by the assessee giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal and thereby not deciding the appeal on merit relating to levy of penalty of Rs.63,69,069/- u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts ... application filed by the assessee giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal and thereby not deciding the appeal on merit relating to levy of penalty of Rs.63,69,069/- u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act. Facts & Submission:- 1. The assessee is a Non-Resident Indian. He is carrying