← 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

M/S. Arun Pulvarising Industries, Pratapgarh vs. Addl. CIT, Chittorgarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 430/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Arun Pulvarising Acit, Chittorgarh, Industries, M.G. Road, Vs Rajasthan Pratapgarh, Rajasthan Pan: Aadfa0793K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Arun Padliya & Shri Abhinav Jaion, Cas Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur Dated 28Th June, 2018 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271E Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “01. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Learned Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Cit(A), Udaipur Erred In Facts As Well As In Law Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of Rs. 3,90,000/- On The Assessee Firm Without Considering The M/S Arun Pulvarising Industries

Section 271ESection 273B

cheque or account payee bank draft, of amount of twenty thousand rupees or more. Section 271D of the Act of 1961 speaks of levy of penalty of a sum equal to the amount of loan or deposit so taken or accepted in ontravention of the provisions of section 269SS ... account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. Under section 273B a judicial discretion is left with the assessing authority not to levy a penalty under section 271D if the authority is satisfied that there was a reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of section 269SS

M/S. the Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

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

ITA 93/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S.The Central Vs. The Acit, Circle Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara. Mahendra Gargieya & Rajasthan. Associates, Adv , No537-538,5Thfloor, Mahimatrinity, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302019, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat8126B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Bhilwara. 1.The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 18.05.2017 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

provision for income tax and also the submissions in the assessment proceedings but the AO was not satisfied with the explanations and levied a penalty of Rs.18,24,100/- and passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 18-05-2017. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order ... appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions and has granted partial relief on the levy of penalty and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 5. At the time

Potluri Phanendra Babu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/VIZ/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.241 & 242/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2012-13) Potluri Phanendra Babu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Agspp 7638 K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 10/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

unexplained investment in property. The Ld. AO considered that the assessee has concealed the income and therefore it is justified in levying of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO on the penalty proceedings, the assessee filed an appeal before ... urged at the time of hearing.” 3. The only issue involved in the grounds raised by the assessee is with respect to levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Before us, at the outset, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has not concealed any particulars

Potluri Phanendra Babu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 241/VIZ/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.241 & 242/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2012-13) Potluri Phanendra Babu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Agspp 7638 K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 10/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

unexplained investment in property. The Ld. AO considered that the assessee has concealed the income and therefore it is justified in levying of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO on the penalty proceedings, the assessee filed an appeal before ... urged at the time of hearing.” 3. The only issue involved in the grounds raised by the assessee is with respect to levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Before us, at the outset, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has not concealed any particulars

Rama Rao Karnam, Visakhapatnam vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 141/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.141/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mr.Rama Rao Karanam Vs. Joint Commissioner Of 4-4 Chandrampalem, Durga Nagar Income Tax Madhurawada Range-4 Pothinamallayapalem S.O. Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan : [Bcppk19929Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1043662508(1) Dated 29.06.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 28.03.2019, Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,20,230/-. During The Course Of Assessment

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

summary manner, without considering the submissions made by the assessee explaining the circumstances under which sale consideration was accepted in cash, upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act, considering this, the orders passed are one sided and is in gross violation of principles of natural justice

Kundan Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Thane

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1730/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 1729/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) आअसं. 1730/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Kundan Industries Ltd. Kundan House, Harisiddhi Estate, Gorai Pada, Vasai (East), Palghar, Maharashtra-401208. Pan: Aaack6811G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Jt.Cit , Tds Range, Ground Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane (West)-400602. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rahul Hakani, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 20.05.2022. Since, The Grounds Raised In 2 आअसं. 1729 & 1730/मुं/2022(िन.व. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ita Nos. 1729 & 1730/M/2022 (Ay 2017-18 & 2018-19) Both The Appeals & The Facts Germen To The Grounds Of Appeals Are Identical, These Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication & Are Decided By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. DR
Section 271C

dispute with Revenue and there was no contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee which is necessary for levy of penalty u/s. 271C of the Act.” 3. Sh. Rahul Hakani appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee had taken loan from Dewan Housing Financial Corporation ... suggest that the penalty may not be imposed in the aforesaid case. Considering the above discussion, we are of the view that the levy of penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case is not warranted. We accordingly set aside the orders of the authorities below and cancel

Kundan Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Thane

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 1729/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) आअसं. 1730/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Kundan Industries Ltd. Kundan House, Harisiddhi Estate, Gorai Pada, Vasai (East), Palghar, Maharashtra-401208. Pan: Aaack6811G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Jt.Cit , Tds Range, Ground Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane (West)-400602. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rahul Hakani, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 20.05.2022. Since, The Grounds Raised In 2 आअसं. 1729 & 1730/मुं/2022(िन.व. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ita Nos. 1729 & 1730/M/2022 (Ay 2017-18 & 2018-19) Both The Appeals & The Facts Germen To The Grounds Of Appeals Are Identical, These Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication & Are Decided By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. DR
Section 271C

dispute with Revenue and there was no contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee which is necessary for levy of penalty u/s. 271C of the Act.” 3. Sh. Rahul Hakani appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee had taken loan from Dewan Housing Financial Corporation ... suggest that the penalty may not be imposed in the aforesaid case. Considering the above discussion, we are of the view that the levy of penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case is not warranted. We accordingly set aside the orders of the authorities below and cancel