← 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

ITO, TDS-2, Jodhpur vs. Rajendra Kumbhat, HUF, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenuebearing ITA No

ITA 34/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271CSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

issued by the ld. ACIT-1 Jodhpur on dated 08.01.2015. The ld. DR further argued that the ld. Additional Commissioner has power to levy of penalty u/s 271C. So, the previous notice should be ignored. 5. The ld. AR vehemently argued and submitted the written submission which are kept ... Circle-1 Jodhpur on dated 08.01.2015 related Sections 274/271C for the impugned assessment year. The long time revenue was totally inaction and not levied the penalty. The ld. AR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The relevant paragraph no. 4.3 to 6 are reproduced as below

Prem Kumar Goutam, Lakhisarai vs. ITO Ward- 2 (5), Lakhisarai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 270ASection 44ASection 69CSection 80C

benefit of any inherent jurisdictional lacuna committed by the ld. Assessing Officer could again be availed by the assessee for absolving himself from levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act. A perusal of section 44AD would indicate that in the case of certain category of assessee ... would have been deleted. But the penalty proceeding is an independent proceeding. The asssessee can take all jurisdictional plea to absolve him from levy of penalty. 7. In view of the above, the assessee cannot be charged that he has under-reported the income and liable to be visited

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1322/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

ignoring the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such mere addition does not lead to levy of penalty. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty despite

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1321/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

ignoring the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such mere addition does not lead to levy of penalty. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty despite

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1320/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

ignoring the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such mere addition does not lead to levy of penalty. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty despite

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1319/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

ignoring the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such mere addition does not lead to levy of penalty. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty despite

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1318/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

ignoring the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such mere addition does not lead to levy of penalty. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty despite

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD) Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1317/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

ignoring the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such mere addition does not lead to levy of penalty. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty despite

Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Patel, Adipur vs. DCIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Vs. The Dcit, Patel Gandhidham Circle, Venus Plaster Industries, Plot Gandhidham (Kutch) No.89, Ward-2B, Adipur (Kutch) Pan : Aaopp 4484 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” For Short] Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 5,04,500/- Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts As Also In Law In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.5,04,500/- Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Act On The Ad-Hoc Disclosure Of Rs.50,45,000/-. The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271Aab Of The Act Is Totally Unjustified On Facts As Also In Law, May Kindly Be Deleted.” 3. The Primary Argument Of The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Against The Levy Of Penalty Was That The Income Surrendered By The Assessee During

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

facts as also in law, may kindly be deleted.” 3. The primary argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee against the levy of penalty was that the income surrendered by the assessee during 2 Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Patel Vs. DCIT AY : 2013-14 search did not quality as “undisclosed income ... Section 271AAB of the Act and accordingly penalty @ 10% thereon was levied amounting to Rs.5,04,500/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed this levy of penalty. 5. The argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the amount surrendered did not quality as undisclosed income rested on the fact

M/S. M. P. Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd., Bhopal vs. The ACIT-2(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

ITA 237/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 M.P.Laghu Udyog Nigam Dcit/Acit, Limited, 2(1), 4Th Floor, Bhopal बनाम/ Panchanan Building, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aabcm1366K Assessee By Shri Sumit Kumar Khabya, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2023

Section 119Section 271BSection 44A

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- levied u/s 271B of the Act. 2. That the levy of penalty u/s 271B of Rs. 1,50,000/- ought to be deleted when the due date of filing audit report was extended upto

Nisha Rungta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

judgments which hold that fact of filing of revised income or after receiving notice from IT Department will not make it free from levy of penalty. It was only because revenue had taken up AA's ROI for scrutiny that concealment came to light. Otherwise, concealed income would not have

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-13, Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1661/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

1659/Del/2021 and two other appeals. Deepak Agarwal. 2. The common grievance in all the appeals relates to the levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, though the quantum may differ. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lies in the assessment order framed U/s 153A read ... justice and fair play, we restore the impugned appeals to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the levy of penalty afresh after considering all the appellate decision in the cases of recipients of the accommodation entries provided by the assessee. Needless to mention

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-13, Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1660/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

1659/Del/2021 and two other appeals. Deepak Agarwal. 2. The common grievance in all the appeals relates to the levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, though the quantum may differ. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lies in the assessment order framed U/s 153A read ... justice and fair play, we restore the impugned appeals to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the levy of penalty afresh after considering all the appellate decision in the cases of recipients of the accommodation entries provided by the assessee. Needless to mention

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-13, Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1659/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

1659/Del/2021 and two other appeals. Deepak Agarwal. 2. The common grievance in all the appeals relates to the levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, though the quantum may differ. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lies in the assessment order framed U/s 153A read ... justice and fair play, we restore the impugned appeals to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the levy of penalty afresh after considering all the appellate decision in the cases of recipients of the accommodation entries provided by the assessee. Needless to mention

The Purshottam Farmers Co.Op Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd., Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 501/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) The Purshottam Farmers Co. Op D.C.I.T., Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Circle-2(3), Surat, Vs. Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Jahangirpura Gin, Jahangirpura, Majuragate, Surat, Rander, Surat, Gujarat-395009 Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaaat 3000 A Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 80P(2)(d)

rather the disallowance was made on the basis of change of opinion. Mere disallowance in every case would not ipso facto lead to levy of penalty. The Assessing officer levied penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded on such disallowance. The ld AR for the assessee submits that

Sushil Kumar Marlecha, Pali vs. Deputy/Asstt, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1, Ghaziabad / Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 123/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 205CSection 206CSection 234E

appellant respectfully begs to submit following facts and details for your honour’s kind consideration : 1. Re : Order passed u/s 200A and levy of penalty u/s 234E : 1.1. The appellant respectfully submits that the ld. AO was not justified in passing the order u/s 200A, which ... facts and is made without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 1.2. It is submitted that the levy of penalty u/s 234E amounting to Rs. 18,800/- for Q-4 of F.Y. 2012-13, is not justified and may kindly be deleted. 1.3. The processing

Pradip Burman, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-71(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6725/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2007-08 Pradip Burman Dcit 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan Vs Circle – 70 (1) 10, Rouse Avenue New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aaapb7429C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit Pradip Burman 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan Circle – 70 (1) Vs New Delhi 10, Rouse Avenue New Delhi Pan No.Aaapb7429C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 271

penalty levied u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act and the grievance of the assessee in his appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 4. The under lying facts which prompted the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act relates ... light the decision of the Hon’ble ACMM (Special Acts), Central District (supra) we do not find any merit in the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the penalty so levied. The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ACIT, Circle-70(1), New Delhi vs. Pradip Burman, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4461/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2007-08 Pradip Burman Dcit 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan Vs Circle – 70 (1) 10, Rouse Avenue New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aaapb7429C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit Pradip Burman 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan Circle – 70 (1) Vs New Delhi 10, Rouse Avenue New Delhi Pan No.Aaapb7429C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 271

penalty levied u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act and the grievance of the assessee in his appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 4. The under lying facts which prompted the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act relates ... light the decision of the Hon’ble ACMM (Special Acts), Central District (supra) we do not find any merit in the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the penalty so levied. The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Manjeet Kaur, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

assessment years 2013-14 wherein the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act . 2.1 Brief facts of the case in this case are that the assessment was completed ... Rs.10,000/-. 2.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty by holding that video conferencing as sought by the assessee could not be provided due to technical glitches and the assessee has not given

Nitin Raj Marwah, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja PitaleFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35(1)(iii)

assessment year 2014-15. 2. The only dispute raised by the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the levy of penalty of Rs.14,87,062, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Nitin Raj Marwah ITA no.2252/Mum./2023 3. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this ... learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld Nitin Raj Marwah ITA no.2252/Mum./2023 the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative