← 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

Satyendra L Nahata, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 218/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotefinancial Year : 2011-12 Satyendra L Nahata, The Commissioner Of C/O. Arihant Sales V Income Tax(Tds), Corporation, Bapurao Gall S Nagpur Blick, Nikalas Mandir, Nagpur – 440032. Pan: Aagpn1404M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rishi Kumar Bisen – Dr Date Of Hearing 30/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 272A(2)(F) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds), Nagpur On 26.06.2018 For The F.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under : “1) The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Levying Penalty U/S. 272A(2)(F) Of Rs.86,838/- Towards Non Submission Of Form 15G / 15H. Satyendra L Nahata [A]

Section 272A(2)(f)

notices to than professional to present before the Ld. CIT(TDS). The assessee came to know of non attendance only the order levy of penalty was received by him thus the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not attending the proceedings. 3) The Ld. Commissioner of Income ... which the first notice was issued only on 15th December 2017. The Ld. CIT(TDS) failed to note that the levy of penalty if any should be imposed within a reasonable period from the end of the assessment year and therefore the levy of penalty after a long period