“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

Prakash Davara, Raipur vs. Assistant Coimmissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 177/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: S/shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

voluntarily surrendered the same in his return of 10 Prakash Davara Vs. ACIT-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) income in response to notice u/s.148. Levy of penalty is bad in law, against law of natural justice and uncalled for and may kindly be annulled. 5. That on the facts

Sohanlal Motilal Jain, Borivali vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri.Narendra Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Prakash Rastogi. Ld

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

closing work-in-progress. 3. Consequently, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated which culminated into levy of penalty of Rs.7,04,535/- vide order dated 11/03/2015 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the AO. The Assessee being aggrieved, preferred first

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Virar vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2469/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

Pune-11 in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s.271AAB for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. In the grounds of appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.18,74,500/- u/s.271AAB. 2 Moreshwar Krushna Baria 3. The brief facts are that search and seizure action u/s.132 was carried out on 31/07/2014 ... judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Siddhi Home Makers in ITA No.4168/Mum/2013. Without prejudice, he submitted that in so far as levy of penalty on account of undisclosed income of Rs.50,00,000/- the same should be @20% and not 30% as levied by the ld. AO, because

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Mumbai vs. CIT Appeals, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

assessee had shown the same in his balance-sheet. Therefore, penalty is not legally sustainable. Secondly, there is reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty as per-section 273B of the Act, since assessee had shown Rs.30 Lakhs in his balance-sheet and by mistake didn’t offer for taxation

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2463/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2462/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Income Tax Officer-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankita Reality and Development Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. EktaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

intention of the appellant was to file inaccurate particulars or conceal particulars of income and consequently to reduce the tax liability, then levy of penalty for this intention of the appellant to reduce the tax liability can be considered as a reasonable cause. In this case, the assessee

Ginni Gold Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Anup Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

concealment of the income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee the Assessing Officer was rightly not justified in levying the penalty. 4. This being a correct approach adopted by both the authorities concurrently, this tax appeal poses no question of law and the same requires ... 510/191 Taxman 179 is of no help to them as therein the High Court was considering the question of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein it had concluded to be a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with mala fide intention which

Chandra Auto Engineers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3147/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

capital loss and not revenue loss. With these directions ITA No.3146/Del/17 is allowed for statistical purpose. 12. ITA No.3147/Del/2017 relates to the levy of penalty. The AO is directed to decide this issue afresh after deciding the issues of ITA No.3146/Del/2017. 13. In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Chandra Auto Engineers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3146/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Bhrathi Consumer Care Products Pvt Ltd, Guntur

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

ITA 249/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Central Circle-1, Products Private Limited, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi Lakshmipuram Main Road, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Guntur-522007, Guntur – 522016, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 17/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Vs. Dcit, Products Private Limited, Central Circle-1, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur – 522016, Guntur-522007, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

considered that the assessee-company has violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and made a proposal to levy the penalty U/s. 271D of the Act vide letter dated 8/6/2021. In response to the notice, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee appeared and submitted the explanation before ... cash of Rs. 1.74 Crs by the assessee company from one of its Directors and considered that it is a fit case for levy of penalty U/s. 271D of the Act and therefore levied a penalty of Rs. 1.74 Crs U/s. 271D of the Act. Aggrieved by the order

Ushadevi Purushothaman, Kochi vs. The ITO Non Corp Ward 2(5), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 324/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Lukose Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

accounts of her business audited u/s.44AB of the Act, and which explains the second appeal (ITA No.162/Coch/2023) contesting the levy of penalty u/s. 271B for non-audit. ITANos. 162 & 324/Coch/ 2022 (AY 2015-16) Ushadevi Purushothaman vs. ITO 3. The assessee is running a Government approved sea-food processing unit ... which would be on it. The AO shall decide by issuing definite findings of fact after allowing due opportunity to the assessee. The levy of penalty u/s. 271B of the Act being intimately related to the turnover, is, accordingly, also set aside for consequential adjudication. We decide accordingly. Page

Ushadevi Purushothaman, Kochi vs. The ITO Non Corp Ward 2(5), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Lukose Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

Premilaba Ramde vs. Inh Jadeja, Rajkotvs.the ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 34/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year ... Delhi. The Ld CIT[A] after considering in detailed the submissions of the assessee and deliberate non-compliance of statutory notices, confirmed the levy of penalty u/s.271[1][b] and dismissed the appeal observing as follows: “…. Considering the facts of the case, it is held that appellant has not complied

Alok Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 570/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CITa

Section 271B

raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal in confirming the levy of penalty by the AO u/s 271B. 2. That the counsel of the assessee was suffering from life threatening disease called carcinoma left breast ... unavoidable circumstances which were beyond his control which led to failure of compliance to notice which further justifies the AO's action of levy of penalty for non- compliance. Infact no compliance has been made by the assessee to the two notices dated 14.01.2021 & 12.03.2021, issued by the Appellate authority

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

ITA 2040/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Respondent/

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

considered the said submissions/claim of the Assessee carefully, however, did not find the same as tenable and ultimately vide penalty order dated 28.02.2018, levied the penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded which works out to Rs. 141,65,57,002/-. 7. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged ... Tribunal in ITA No. 853/Mum/2018 in the similar facts and circumstances deleted the penalty levied on the said addition and therefore, the levy of penalty on the said addition is also un- sustainable. 8.7 We observe that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, not only in the Assessee

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

ITA 2039/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Respondent/

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Gopesh Fabrics P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Faridabad

Appeal stands allowed accordingly

ITA 2483/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

have complied with the 4 statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and no fault can be attributed to the assessee for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. He prayed for deletion of penalty levied by the AO. 4. On the other hand, learned

Vivaan Infotel Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5549/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 217(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on facts and in law the CIT (A) has erred in upholding levy of penalty of Rs 6,67,421/-imposed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts ... erred in upholding levy of penalty on addition of Rs 21,59,940/- made by the AO in order of assessment dated 08th December 2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act 3. That on facts and in law, the AO/CIT(A) have erred in holding / upholding that appellant

Ashwinkumar Kailashchand Bajoriya, Akola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1-1, Aklo

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 60/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 060/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ashwinkumar Kailashchand Bajoriya, Murtizapur Road, Akola - 444 004 Pan: Abjpb6524E . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Kumar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115WSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(ii)

submission that ‘he was busy with time barring tax audit till 31/10/2018’ did failed to impress the Ld. AO, which resulted in levying impugned penalty of ₹10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2.3 Aforestated levy of penalty was unsuccessfully assailed before first appellate authority in an appeal ... consequently the assessee came in present appeal before Tribunal on twofold grounds that, the impugned levy of penalty is bad in law and without natural justice. 3. At the virtual hearing, the Ld. AR solidifying the fact of non-compliance has pleaded that, once the assessment is framed