“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

Jamnadas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. DCIT, Int.Tax, Rajkot

ITA 72/RJT/2023[BP 01.04.1989 to 08.06.1999]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R

Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

269SS and 269T of the Act by the appellant. Penalty proceedings under Section 271D & 271E of the Act was initiated separately culminating into levy of penalties of Rs.26,97,460/- & Rs.23,45,415/- respectively on 25.07.2002. 5. During the pendency of the assessment proceeding consequent to search, the appellant filed ... have filed these ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 7- appeals before us against the order for confirmation of levy of penalty imposed under Section 271D and 271E of the Act immediately after disposal of the application by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

Jamndas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 216/RJT/2022[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R

Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Jamndas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 215/RJT/2022[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R

Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Rameedevi Mulnath Sidh, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rameedevi Mulnath Sidh, I.T.O., 303, Shankheswar Complex, Yogi Ward 2(3)(4), Vs. Park, Althan, Surat, Gujarat-395017 Surat. Pan No. Adips 9728 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

information provided by the Assessee. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice under section 274 read with section 272(A)(1)(d) for levying of penalty for non-compliance of various notices under Section 142(1) vide notice dated 31/10/2019. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee was required ... view of above factual and legal position, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied vide order dated 09.11.2019. In the result, grounds

Dhanraj Sethia, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1

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

ITA 169/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd 322 ITR 158 for supporting his views. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in levying the penalty ignoring the fact that assessee was under bona fide belief that the TDS provisions are not attracted on the Finance Charges payment to Banks and NBFC ... appeal are accordingly dismissed. ‘’ 2.2 During the course of hearing the Bench noted through the present appeal that the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.1,72,823/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.3 At the outset, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee

M/S Barmer Ligmite Mining Company Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are exactly identical except the difference in the amount of levy of penalty in other assessment year. The ld. DR did not raise any specific objection against taking that case as a lead case. Therefore

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 157/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

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

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

M/S Barmer Ligmite Mining Company Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 156/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 155/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 154/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 153/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

Darshana Ashokkumar Sheth Individual, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 260/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2005-06 & 2006-07. 2. The solitary issue involved in these appeal is the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. As both these appeals are on identical facts, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking

Van Oord Dradging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, International Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Section 144C(5)Section 234B

with brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. The other two issues relates to short grant of TDS deducted at source of Rs.12,57,756/- and levy of penalty u/s.234B. 4. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue stands covered by series of decisions of the Tribunal in assessee

ACIT, Circle-3(2), Surat vs. M/S. Vinay Diamonds, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/SRT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S Vinay Diamonds 201 To 205, 2Nd Floor, Avad Building, Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat, Room Vs. Opp. Mehta Petrol Pump, Katargam, No.410, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395004 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfv 5089 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar– Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, CA

Section 195(6)Section 271

which mandates, that if the person failed to furnish such information before the assessing officer or furnishes inaccurate particulars, the assessing officer may levy a penalty of Rs.10000/-. In response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee furnished its reply before the assessing officer on dated ... assessee committed a default by not furnishing the requisite Form 15CA/certificate before him in respect of 70 foreign remittance and therefore liable for levy of penalty u/s 271-I of the Act and hence assessing officer imposed penalty of Rs.70

Vishal Bansal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 58/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

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

Assessing officer did not considered that the assessee company has nowhere tried to conceal it income which is a sine qua non for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. He ignored that Law for making addition in quantum proceedings is different from

Tirupati Reddy Mukku, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-27(3), Mumbai

ITA 857/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil NatekarFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions, perused the material on record 9. and considered the legal position. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides for levy of penalty where Assessing Officer is satisfied that 3 any person has (i) concealed particulars of income or (ii) furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. We note

Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2784/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2011-12 Godwin Construction Pvt. Dcit Ltd. A-151, Defence Colony, Vs Central Circle Mawana Road, Meerut Meerut U.P. 250002 Pan No.Aaefg1843R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 271Section 292C

penalty of Rs. 39,66,000/- levied by the AO u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 31.03.2013 framed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act wherein the returned income of Rs.2427270/- was assessed at Rs.27274270 ... foundation has been removed the super structure must fall meaning thereby since the additions have been deleted there is no basis for the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the penalty so levied. The appeal of the assessee

Neelam Garg, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward No. 3, Karnal

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6250/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargneelam Garg, Vs. Ito, Hem Chand Jain, H. No. 2, Ward No. 3, Huda Staff Owarter, No. 1, Karnal Sector-13, Extn, Karnal, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ainpg2119D Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

inaccurate particulars alone, the assessee does not ipso facto become liable for penalty. Imposition of penalty is not automatic. Not only is the levy of penalty discretionary in nature but the discretion is also required to be exercised on the part of the Assessing Officer keeping the relevant factors

Chetndas Sablani, Burhapur vs. The JCIT, Khanwa

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

ITA 116/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanichetandas Sablani Jcit M.B. 18, New Indira Colony Khandwa Vs. Burhanpur

Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

during the course of checking levied penalty of Rs.8 lacs u/s 271D of the Act vide order dated 05.02.2020. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the Ld. CIT(A) however, the appeal filed by the assesse was dismissed and order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 271D ... section 269SS. 5. We have considered the rival submission as well as relevant material on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the levy of penalty by recording the fact as under: “5. To afford the appellant an opportunity of being heard, notices u/s 250 were issued