← 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 Maharani Finance Corporaton, Thiruchengode vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1264/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1262/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Maharani Finance Corporation Dcit बनाम/ 24A, Velur Road, Central Circle, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 211. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfs-0488-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty In Captioned Assessment Years, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 For Ay 2016-17 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

matter of penalty levied by the Ld.AO u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 30-09-2022. 2. Facts leading the levy of penalty are that the assessee-firm is stated to be engaged in the money lending business. Pursuant to survey action u/s 133A ... income of furnished inaccurate particulars of such income…… The same was followed by various other hearing notices. The assessee objected to the levy of penalty. However, rejecting the same, Ld. AO imposed penalty of Rs.16.71 Lacs for concealment of income. 4. During appellate proceedings, the assessee, inter-alia, submitted that

Sri Maharani Finance Corporation, Thiruchengode vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1262/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1262/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Maharani Finance Corporation Dcit बनाम/ 24A, Velur Road, Central Circle, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 211. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfs-0488-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty In Captioned Assessment Years, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 For Ay 2016-17 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

matter of penalty levied by the Ld.AO u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 30-09-2022. 2. Facts leading the levy of penalty are that the assessee-firm is stated to be engaged in the money lending business. Pursuant to survey action u/s 133A ... income of furnished inaccurate particulars of such income…… The same was followed by various other hearing notices. The assessee objected to the levy of penalty. However, rejecting the same, Ld. AO imposed penalty of Rs.16.71 Lacs for concealment of income. 4. During appellate proceedings, the assessee, inter-alia, submitted that

Sri Maharani Finance Corporation, Thiruchengode vs. DCIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1261/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1262/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Maharani Finance Corporation Dcit बनाम/ 24A, Velur Road, Central Circle, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 211. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfs-0488-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty In Captioned Assessment Years, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 For Ay 2016-17 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

matter of penalty levied by the Ld.AO u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 30-09-2022. 2. Facts leading the levy of penalty are that the assessee-firm is stated to be engaged in the money lending business. Pursuant to survey action u/s 133A ... income of furnished inaccurate particulars of such income…… The same was followed by various other hearing notices. The assessee objected to the levy of penalty. However, rejecting the same, Ld. AO imposed penalty of Rs.16.71 Lacs for concealment of income. 4. During appellate proceedings, the assessee, inter-alia, submitted that

Fatehsinh Udesinh Parmar, at. Dena, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer Ward

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

ITA 772/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Fatehsinh Udesinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, At. Dena Para, Vs Ward-3(1)(4), Hami Dena Road, Vadodara Vadodara-390022 Gujarat Pan: Awwpp2183 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil B Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 4-8-2023 Passed By The Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Nfac'), Dismissing The Appeal Against The Order Penalty Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') Relating To The Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16. Fatehsinh Udesinh Parmar Vs. Ito Asst. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anil B Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

show cause notices were sent to the assessee on 7.4.2022 and 5.8.2022 under section 271(1)(b) as why not to levy of penalty for noncompliance of the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Subsequently order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 was passed by the AO determining total ... dependent. He also produced some judicial pronouncements in his reply. However, the assessing officer, not being satisfied with the reply form the assessee levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved against the above penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before

Trilokchand Sirsalewala, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Range-33(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 796/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 Trilokchand Sirsalewala Joint Commissioner Of A-1/7, 202, Income Tax- Range 33(1), Room No. 931, 9Th Floor, Best View, Yashodham, Opp. Dindoshi Bus Depot., Kautilya Bhawan, Vs. Goregaon (E.) C-41 To C-43, Mumbai- 400063. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Abeps5015N Bandra (E.), Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rakeshkumar Sirsalewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Passed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 33(1), Mumbai U/S. 271D Of The Income Tax Act (‘Act’ In Short) Vide Order Dated 30/07/2019 For The A.Y 2011-12 Which Was Subsequently, Confirmed In Appeal By The Ld. Cit Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Rakeshkumar Sirsalewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271D

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060060772(1) dated 24/01/2024 for assessment year 2011-12. 2. Following grounds of appeal have been raised: “1. Ground No. 1 - Levy of Penalty u/s. 271D of the Income tax Act, 1961 in violation of provisions of penalty Section 269SS On the facts and in the circumstances ... levying penalty of Rs. 14.00 Lakhs, which was later upheld by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellant therefore, prays that the levy of Penalty Rs. 14.00 lakhs be deleted. 2. Ground No. 2- the alleged cash loan transaction of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been inadvertently recorded twice Without