“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

Jafar Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 518/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

illegal & bad in law and be qushed. 3. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,36,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify and ground ... email id mentioned in Form No. 35. 2. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify and ground

Jafar Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 517/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Jafar Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 516/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Oriental Bank of Commerce Ruhs Branch, Jaipur vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 480/JPR/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh SharmaFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271C

passed ex parte by upholding the penalty order passed under section 271C of the IT Act and thereby sustained the levy of penalty under section 271C of the IT Act of Rs. 2,67,763/- being equivalent to the amount of tax which the appellant failed to deduct, therefore

Sakku Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(2), Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 448/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 144Section 147Section 148

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(C) whereas the Ld. ITO has not given notice u/s 274 rws 271 to impose the penalty as show cause

Sakku Devi, Jaipur vs. Incometax Officer 7(2), Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 447/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2513/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Officer has not specified the charge in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act. 3. The roots for levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 03.08.2011 framed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act by which the returned loss ... penalty, the Assessing Officer has concluded as under: “As the assessee has clearly concealed the particulars/filed inaccurate particulars of income……..” 10. Even while levying the penalty, the Assessing Officer is not certain under which limb the penalty is to be levied. 11. This has not been accepted

Vikas Sharma, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 256/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 256/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vikas Sharma Quarter No.6-A, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan : Ddcps1720P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

used conjunction “or” to mention both limbs, i.e, concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and charge for levy of penalty was not explicitly clear from notice, then, the same 20 Vikas Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai was to be held

Bhagwan Das Rai, Itarsi vs. The ITO Ward-, Itarsi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 16/IND/2023[22017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Bhagwandas Rai, Ito, M/S.Deva Marketing, Ward-2, बनाम/ Hospital Road

Section 144Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [‘The Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (‘the Act’) by the Ld. AO,NFAC, Delhi (‘the Ld.AO’) for not furnishing tax audit report ... determining the turnover and consequently deciding whether the assessee was liable to get his accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act. Thus, the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act is wrong and is liable to be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Yogendraraj U. Singhvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.459/Srt/2023 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Hybrid Mode) Yogendra Raj U Singhvi, Income Tax Officer-2(3)(8) Cts, 95/4/B-3-4/590, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs Village Dindoshi, Surat-395001 Oberoi Garden City, Flat No. 3902, Floor C-Wing, Meter Exquisite, Mumbai. Pan : Anjps 9745 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

cause notice date 06.02.2018 was issued to the assessee and that no reply was filed by assessee. The order of assessing officer in levying the penalty was upheld by ld CIT(A), which is impugned before this Tribunal. 6. We find that on further appeal in quantum assessment before Tribunal ... average profit ratio. 7. We find this combination in Nazar Impex P Ltd (supra) while considering the similar contentions of the parties on levy of penalty on similar estimated additions of similar purchase, deleted the similar penalty under section 271(1)(c) by taking view that no penalty is leviable

Smt. Krishna, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 435/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (FCA.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

same has been passed without mentioning the specific charge. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,10,426/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves to alter, amend & modify any ground ... imposed penalty of Rs.2,10,426/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty on the ground that assessee failed to furnish any reply during the appellate proceedings. Submission:- 1. It may be noted that AO initiated the penalty

Smt. Krishna, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 434/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (FCA.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

The Asstt. Director Income Tax, Cen. Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Backbone Projects Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 567/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271A

failed to file the disclosures of income as admitted in the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act. Therefore the Ld. A.O. levied a penalty of Rs. 22,97,058/- being 10% of the undisclosed income. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner ... been fulfilled. It is also held that in respect of balance undisclosed income of Rs. 1,67,68,242/-, the AO has correctly levied the penalty u/s 271AAA as undisclosed to this explanation was neither offered in the return of income nor the due taxes were paid thereupon. Therefore

Backbone Projects Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commr. Income Tax, Cen. Circle-II, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 535/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271A

Glee Pharma Private Limited, Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Cuttack

ITA 171/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Pahanawa Pahanawa Associates Associates Pvt Pvt Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Jt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Flat No.606, Vishnu Ltd., Flat No.606, Vishnu Tax, Tax, Range Range-1, Block, Block, Balaji Balaji Complex Complex Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Housing Society Housing Society, Jharpada, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecp 8304 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Ar Saroj Kumar Parida, Ar Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, : Shri Charan Dass, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/10 0/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi , Nfac, Delhi Dated 3.3.2023 In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/10503755744(1) Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of The Act 23/10503755744(1) Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of The Act 23/10503755744(1) Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of The Act For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 015-16. 2. Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass

Section 269TSection 271E

treated the repayment of the same in cash as violation of the provisions of section 269T of the Act and consequently levied the penalty u/s.271E of the Act. Ld AR submitted that on appeal, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of the JCIT levying the penalty u/s. 271E ... which being aggrieved the appellant preferred 1st appeal before the CIT Appeal, Bhubaneswar. That the Ld. CIT Appeal (NFAC) uphold the levy of penalty without appreciating the appellant had not committed any default in terms of section 269T of the Act at all, because the appellant neither taken any loan

Suresh Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO Ward - 40(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1965/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Us & Hence

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

furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This additional ground is a legal issue and in any case, we find that the very basis of levy of penalty is under challenge before us and hence the additional ground is hereby admitted and is taken up for adjudication along with the original grounds

Manoj Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 158] submits that mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law cannot lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings ... furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the assessment order and while levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the order passed on 29.06.2022 invoking the Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision

Manisha Jain, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3420/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

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

notice was issued without specifying the charge for which notice was issued the penalty proceedings initiated were bad in law and consequently levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. 4. It is observed that an identical issue came up before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (full

Sanjay Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

appeal.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in dispute is with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR placed on record Page 2 of 4 Sanjay Singh vs. ACIT a copy

Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 9570/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act in an order dated 14.03.2019. 1.1 That while upholding levy of penalty, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that since notice dated 30.12.2016 was vague in as much as it did not state