“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

Paras Mal Jain, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 353/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143Section 271ASection 274

which assessee filed his explanation. The explanation filed by assessee has been held by A.O. as not sustainable at all and levied a penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- on assessee. 2.2 The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A) against said penalty order and in course of hearing filed ... assessee are as under: - (1) The ground no.1and 3 are interlinked hence a combined submission is made here under:- The Ld. A.O. has levied impugned penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(a)of the I T Act, 1961. In this connection it is submitted that the section 271AAB of Act has three

D C Polyester Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 186/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2014-15 and 2016-17. 2. The solitary issue involved in these appeals are the levy of penalty amounting to Rs.3,67,090/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act being tax sought to be evaded by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ... assessee has also taken the ground that the A.O. has failed to specify whether the levy of penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2 ITA Nos. 186 & 189/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2014-15 & 2016-17) D C Polyester Limited vs. DCIT

Maqsood Ali, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1376/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Maqsood Ali, Vs Ito, S/O-Hakeemudadeen,H.No.1358, Ward-1(1)(4), Naya Asiyana Colony, Meerut, Meerut. Uttar Pradesh-250002. Pan-Btapa3800J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Devashish Bhaduria, Adv. & Shri Shamsher Singh, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

with the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act. Within the meaning of section 273B of the 1.T. Act. The levy of penalty is subject to section 273B which provides that no penalty shall be imposable if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause

Mr. Tirlok Nath Mahajan, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 47/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 194ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Accordingly, 5 I.T.A. No. 47/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 the case is remanded to the AO with the direction to adjudicate the issue levy of penalty as per provisions of Explanation 3 to clause c of section 271(1) of the Act as per mandate after granting sufficient opportunity

Shri Sukhbir Singh Bedi, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Gurdaspur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 122/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N. AroraFor Respondent: Shri Pardeep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

against the facts of this case and are untenable under the law. 2. That no reasonable opportunity of being heard was allowed before levying the penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A(l)(d) of the IT Act, 1961. As such the penalty order as well as the order ... have heard the rival contention, perused the material on record and the impugned order. Admittedly, CIT appeal had not adjudicated the matter of levy of penalty under section 271A(1)(d) of the act, rather discussed the quantum addition, holding the appeal stands dismissed in casual manner by observing

ACIT Circle-76(1), New Delhi vs. Tv Today Network Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5107/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Tv Today Network Ltd. Circle – 76(1) Vs F-26, First Floor, New Delhi Connaught Circus, New Delhi Pan No.Aabct0424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Respondent By Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 14/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: /06/2023 Order

Section 201Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 40a

also deducted tax at source and deposited the same. The CIT(A) concluded by holding that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271C of the Act and deleted the same. 9. Before us though the DR strongly supported the findings of the AO but could

Saloni Narang, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2413/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B Vasanta,CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)Section 90

1832/DEL/2018 the assessee has challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). In ITA No. 2413/DEL/2018, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been challenged. Since both the appeals were heard together, they are being disposed of by this

Saloni Narang, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 15, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1832/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B Vasanta,CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)Section 90

Hemant Shridhar Phatak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-35(1)(5) Presently-ITO-42(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 268/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

For Appellant: S/Shri Devang Divecha &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh Chourasia, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54(1)

suppressed any material fact. The exemption u/s. 54 of the Act was claimed on a bonafide belief, hence, cannot be a reason for levy of penalty. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., 189 Taxman ... liable to be deleted as we have allowed the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No.267/Mum/2023 (supra). Once the substratum for levy of penalty is eroded, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive. 9 ITA NO.267 & 268/MUM/2023(A.Y.2013-14) 12. Even on merits, penalty

Hemant Shridhar Phatak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-35(1)(5) Presently-ITO-42(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 267/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

For Appellant: S/Shri Devang Divecha &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh Chourasia, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54(1)

Ginjala Atchiraju, L/R. of Ginjala Simhadri Raju, Kakinada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 159/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

urged at the time of hearing.” 4. 5. The main issue that arises from the above grounds of appeal is with respect to levy of penalty of Rs. 90 lakhs by the Ld. AO U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR argued that ... Apsara Talkies (supra)has clearly held that mere estimate of cost by Departmental Valuer could not constitute material to concealment and therefore levy of penalty is not valid. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Apsara Talkies (supra

Shri Ashwinkumar V. Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (2) (4), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed in limine

ITA 52/RJT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Us. This Clearly Shows That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Above Appeal.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

against the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot. The assessee claimed that the levy of penalty is based on the estimated profit @ 5% determined by the Assessing Officer as against the net profit of @ 1.28% declared by the assessee ... income, therefore the I.T.A No. 52/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 4 Ashwinkumar V. Mehta Vs. ITO Ld. CIT(A) upheld the levy of Penalty and thereby dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 5. Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds

Subhash Chand Patni, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 207/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

perverse and against the facts and law. Further action of Ld CIT(Appeal), NFAC in so far as confirming the levy of penalty as levied by Ld AO is absolutely illegal and unjustified in the facts & circumstances of the case. 2. That Ld CIT (Appeal) NFAC has grossly erred ... appeal case the CIT(A), NFAC has further erred in confirming the penalty without any basis. 4. That Ld AO has erred in levying of penalty and further CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the penalty mechanically and without application of mind and thus entire proceedings are illegal

Shri Jatinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1, Amritsar

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

ITA 231/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 269SSection 271D

rebutting the documentary evidence, the copy of the sale deed, which was the subject matter, forming the basis for the order of the levy of penalty under section 271D of the act. The AR explained that he filed all detail written submissions before CIT appeal, along with documentary evidence ... Accordingly, we consider it deem fit to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT Appeal to adjudicate the issue of levy of penalty under section 271D afresh, after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard, after providing the copy of the sale deed, and other information

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Deepak Kumar, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1306/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Gurugram, Deepak Kumar, Haryana 122016 H.No. 13/2, Dlf Phase-1, Lower Vs. Ground Floor, Gurugram, Haryana Pan Aaapk 4112 D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri T. James Singson, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-34, New Delhi Dated 27.06.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(4) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Us 271D Of The Act Relying On The Order Of The Hon 'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, cAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT(DR)

Section 269S

consideration and the following observations are made:- (i) The underlying facts in all the appeals in this consolidated appellate order are identified for levy of penalty u/s 271D r.w.s. 269SS of the Act. (ii) Search and seizure operation us 132 of the Act was carried ... Considering the facts of the cases in hand from all possible angles, we do not find them to be fit cases for levy of penalty us 271D of the Act. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied in respect of the captioned appellants

Nirman Electronics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward 10(3)(1)/AO NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 324/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalnirman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 4, Annapurna Sadan, Behind Moonlight Shopping Centre Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 069 Pan: Aaacn8193L ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh SabooFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271

Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities below have erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 3, 28,367/- u/ s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and the reasons/ justifications assigned for doing so were

Taksonz Developers and Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2696/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi12 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2013-14 Taksonz Developers & Ito Infrastructure Ltd Vs Ward- 25 (1) 4348/4C, Ansari Road, New Delhi Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110001 Pan No.Aaact6124D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 246Section 250(6)Section 271

assessed at Rs.1,42,60,610/-. 6. Penalty proceedings were separately initiated u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act which culminated into the levy of penalty of Rs.45,49,953/- . 7. The levy of penalty was agitated before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal by holding as under

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd 119 CTR 222 (SC) it was held that, "As per well established law provision regarding levy of penalty and increased rate are in the nature of substantive law and not objective law,". ii. In the case of Vatika Township

Shri Tirlok Singh Through Legal Heir Gurnam Singh, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Gurdaspur

Appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the manner discussed as above

ITA 71/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 70 & 71/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tarlok Singh Through Legal Heir The Ito Gurnam Singh Dorangla Ward Gurdaspur-143521- Punjab Gurdaspur

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri V.S. Aggarwal, ITP

Section 144Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

liable to file the audit report as required under section 44AB of the Act before the due date. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has levied minimum penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on violation of provisions of Section 271B of the Act for non filing the Tax Audit Report within time ... such five non compliance to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. 8. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed levy of penalty under section 272A(1)(d) by observing that the assessee has failed to bring on record any cogent reason which is reasonable enough

Shri Tirlok Songh Through Legal Heir Gurnam Singh, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Gurdaspur

Appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the manner discussed as above

ITA 70/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 70 & 71/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tarlok Singh Through Legal Heir The Ito Gurnam Singh Dorangla Ward Gurdaspur-143521- Punjab Gurdaspur

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri V.S. Aggarwal, ITP

Section 144Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A