“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

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 579/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

580/JPR/2023 has following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on fact and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 8 lacs u/s 271D of IT Act by allegedly holding that assessee has received cash of Rs. 8 lacs against agreement to sale the land ... specific arguments were raised the same we feel are not required to be adjudicated. Thus, now the sole ground left is for levy of penalty u/s. 271D of the Act. The brief facts of the case for levy of the penalty are that the assessee filed his return of income

Shivnandan Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2827/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,58,68,110/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite

Mgg Infra Projects Private Limited, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 728/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 244ASection 250Section 270A

order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 03/03/2023 in respect of the Assessment Year: 2017-18 challenging therein confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act amounting to ₹1,96,362/-. 2 MGG Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 2. None appeared on behalf

Income Tax Officer, Mandsaur vs. Oref Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mandsaur

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 254/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Oref Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mandsaur 69, Agrasen Nagar, बनाम/ Mandsaur Vs. (Revenue/Appellant ) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aabco 0111 G Assessee By Shri Subhash Chand Jain, Ca & Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

given relief qua the addition deleted. On a careful reading of section 271(1)(c), we observe that the levy of penalty as well calculation- formula of the penalty contemplated in section 271(1)(c) is linked with quantum-addition. Therefore, if the addition itself does not subsist, the penalty

Mani Sundaram, Devakottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 899/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.899/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mani Sundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 52, Thiyagigal Road, Ward-1, Karaikudi. Devakottai, Tamil Nadu 630 302. [Pan:Cwops9124D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 21.06.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of M/S. Surabi Pvc Pipes & Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 20.01.2018 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹.3,03,720/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

from close relatives, which were subsequently the loans, were treated as gift and credited to his capital account. Therefore, it was submitted that levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act is unwarranted. By relying upon the decisions in the cast of CIT v. Smt. M. Yesodha ... machineries. Thus, we are of the opinion that the explanation offered against show cause notice before the authorities below were reasonable and therefore, levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act is untenable. Moreover, on an identical facts and circumstances in similar issue, in the case of Ms. Nanda

Manphool Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 271B

covered under the any reasonable clause and since the assessee has not complied the statutory provisions, the action of levy of penalty by the AO was confirmed. Aggrieved from the said order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred this appeal solely on the levy of the penalty ... Despite turnover exceeded Rs. 40 lakhs, assessee had not submitted his audit report as required by law— Therefore, it was fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271B—Though assessee admitted unaccounted turnover which resulted into total turnover exceeds Rs.40 lakhs, same had not been recorded in books of accounts

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Ojas Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4143/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 37

page no.147 to 154). The evidence is in the nature of orders of Central Excise Authorities. The levy of penalty is on account of the low recovery and not for infraction of law or any offence prohibited by law. State Govt. under the UP Excise Act 1910 has fixed

M/S. Ojas Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3714/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 37

Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal. The threeappeals of the assessee in ITA No.1751- 1753/Ahd/2008 are in relation to the orders passed by the ld.CIT(A) confirming levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short]. Remaining appeals are in relation

The ITO, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 332/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Demi Realtors, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

identical nature arising in case of assessee’s brother, the Tribunal while deciding the issue in ITA No.300 & 2748/Del/2022 dt.11.01.2023 has deleted the levy of penalty u/s 234B of the Act by observing that the cash seized should have been adjusted against the self assessment tax payable with the return

Summit Online Trade Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cetral Circle 1 (3), Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 648/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Feb 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar,(JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR

Section 271A

lapse on the part of the assessee. The case was held to be falling under Clause (c) of Sec.271AAB. Accordingly, Ld. AO levied impugned penalty @30% of Rs.275.21 Lacs which worked out to be Rs.82.56 Lacs. 3. During appellate proceedings, the assessee prayed for keeping the appeal in abeyance till ... appeal by Hon’ble High Court. However, Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee did not adduce any valid grounds on merits against levy of penalty. Accordingly, the penalty was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: - 1. The orders

M/S Siddharth Diagold Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 171/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)

SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, sustaining the levy of penalty under section 272A(1)(d) amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return ... under section 144 by the AO vide its order dt. 20/12/2019 determining total income at Rs. 4,60,30,585/-. 3. Against the levy of penalty, the assessee moved in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi who has upheld the action of the AO in levying the penalty

Bappaditya Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-24, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 899/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.898&899/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bappaditya Chakraborty……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Afupc4296H] Vs. Acit, Circle-24, Hooghly………………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Time-Barred By 1395 Days. As Per The Affidavit Of The Assessee Namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, It Has Been Deposed That The Appeal Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Received By The Assessee On 03.09.2019 & Thereafter The Assessee Approached His Advocate, Keshab Lal Mukherjee, For The

Section 271(1)(c)

captioned are the two appeals preferred by the assessee, one is pertaining to the quantum addition and the other is deleting to the levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Both the appeals of the assessee are time ... lower authorities on this issue is ordered to be deleted. 10. ITA No.899/Kol/2023 – In this appeal, the assessee has contested the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. Since, in view of our order passed in assessee’s appeal vide ITA No.898/Kol/2023, the quantum additions made

Bappaditya Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-24, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 898/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Ramesh Chandra Parekh., Kolkata vs. ITO, Delhi, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1259/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1259/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Ramesh Chandra Parekh…..…......................…...……………....Appellant City Centre, 19, Synagogue Street, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadfr2844L] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. M. Thard, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 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 05.10.2023 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 The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271Da Of The Act On Account Of Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269St For Accepting Cash Payment More Than The Prescribed Limit Of Rs.2,00,000/- In An Aggregate From A Person In Respect Of A Single Transaction. 3. The Ld. Counsel, At The Outset, Has Submitted That The Aforesaid Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269St Was Not Intentional, Rather, The

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

well as cash and despite due to diligence, the aforesaid default has occurred, therefore, we do not think it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271DA of the Act and the same is deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Kolkata, the 31st January

Prathamesh Vivek Khot, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 41 2 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 2602/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Prathamesh Vivek Khot 1502-1503 Dreams 1-A Wing, National E-Assessment Lbs Marg Bhandup (W), Centre, Delhi Vs. Mumbai-400 078 Maharashtra-400 078 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bsbpk6695K Assessee By : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR

Section 142Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 54FSection 9

learned CIT (A) failed to note that the appellant had a meritorious case in quantum proceedings and hence the question of levy of penalty u/s 270A did not arise. 2. The learned CIT (A) fell in error of law in not appreciating that, the Appellant was holding one residential house ... proceedings under section 270A of the act. 05. The learned AO held that assessee has not filed a formal application for immunity from levy of penalty in the prescribed form number 68 before the AO as per the provisions of section 270AA of the act within the time limit

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icic Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1762/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri. Gagan Goyal ()

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

based on the legal position and facts of the case. Therefore, it cannot be held as concealment of income and question of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) does not arise in this case. The Assessee also claimed before the Assessing Officer that it has already filed ... further claimed that disallowance under section 14A, in fact, is an issue involving legal interpretation and rejection of legal claim will not attract levy of penalty, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power

Distt Cooperative Bank Ltd, Meerut vs. ACIT Circe, Bijnor

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2516/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2015-16 बनाम Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd., Acit C/O Kashyap & Co., 114, Citi Centre, Vs. Circle, B.B. Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Wahid Nagar, Station Road, Najibabad, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aabfd2205R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

Counsel submits that if the AO did not specify the limb for which the show cause notice was issued for levy of penalty, the penalty notice is bad in law and consequently, the penalty order is bad in law. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Madras High Court

Distt Cooperative Bank Ltd, Meerut vs. ACIT Circle, Bijnor

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2515/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

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