“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

Pradeep Chauhan, Sonipat vs. ITO Ward - 3, Sonipat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7313/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1). Against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) amounting to Rs.10,000/-, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). 3. Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the penalty by observing as under ... records. 5. We find that there was no compliance to the notices of the AO. Hence, on the facts and circumstances, the levy of penalty is correct. Hence, we uphold the well-reasoned order of ld. CIT (A). 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced

Sunil Bagga, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(3), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 6068/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ld.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory. Ld. CIT (A) was not convinced and opined that these decisions are not applicable and hence, he confirmed the levy of penalty. 4. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before me. I have heard the ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the records. None

Shri Nizarali Bahadurbhai Hajiyani, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Morbi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 300/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Assessee as against the separate appellate orders dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot, confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys ... case laws relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable on facts. In view of above discussion, the action of the AO of levy of penalty is confirmed. In result, the grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed. 6. In result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 3.1. Similar

Shri Nizarali Bahadurbhai Hajiyani, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Morbi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 299/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Nizarali Bahadurbhai Hajiyani, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Morbi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 298/RJT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Bhupendra Maganlal Naik (HUF), Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer Ward No. 1, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am (Physical Hearing) Bhupendra Maganlal Naik (Huf), The Ito, Ward No.1, 29/B, Manglam Bunglow, Navsari. Vs Alka Society, Chhapra Road, Navsari, Gujarat – 396445. Pan : Aaghd1504E Appellant Respondednt

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

addition made on estimation basis. Similar view was taken by various Benches of Tribunal; therefore, we do not find any justification in levy of penalty of Rs.1,40,707/- under section 271(1)(c). Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty. 10. In the result

Smt. Amina Anvar, Kollam vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Alappuzha

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

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565 has held the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is imposed and when the position being unclear, the penalty is unsustainable. The relevant ... Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxmn 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke

B Hameed, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 676/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Muralidharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

audit report under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act 1961 and complied with the directions as mentioned in the section the levy of penalty is unjust and arbitrary on the ground that the belated Act on the part of the assessee to get either or both the pieces ... assessee has Page 4 of 6 been regularly delaying the filing of the audit report for earlier assessment years also. Accordingly the AO levied the penalty of Rs.69,787 u/s.271B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who upheld the levy of penalty

Mr. Ranjith Thazhe Kunhambath, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Non Corporate Range 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Supreme Court in the case of PriceWaterHouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) while considering the issue of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act held that even if the assessee was a reputed firm and had great expertise available with ... decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PriceWaterHouse Coopers (supra), we are of the considered view that the levy of penalty is not warranted and accordingly we delete the same. 9. In view of our decision with regard to levy of penalty under section

Suresh Chand Tyagi, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4135/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR

Section 132(4)

facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That the assessee having established with conclusive evidence that the notice ... notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, having been served upon the assessee before 16.01.2015 (served in person through notice server / inspector), the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act for non compliance ought to have been deleted. 3. That the notice dated

Suresh Chand Tyagi, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4134/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR

Section 132(4)

Ashvin Narayan Bajoria HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 369/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer levied penalty @100% of tax sought to be evaded. 3 Ashvin Narayan Bajoria (HUF) 4. Aggrieved by the order of levy of penalty the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The case of assessee migrated before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). Before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed similar

Parsben Jivanbhai Vadhiya, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed

ITA 47/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.47/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Parasben Jivanbhai Vadhiya Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Village Budhaleshwar, Tal. Income-Tax, Circle-(3), Vs Mahuva, Surat-394250 Surat Pan No: Apvpv 0109 F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 25.01.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 06.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.1,54,500/- U/S 270A Of The I.T.Act, 1961. Parasben J. Vadhiya 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Although Assessee Sought Adjournment Upto 12/01/2023. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)Section 274Section 43B

paid after due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. In response to show cause against levy of penalty, the assessee filed its reply through ITBA portal on 05.01.2021, which was not considered by assessing officer. The assessing officer imposed penalty under section 270A ... categorically finding that the assessee claimed deduction of such amount in computation of income of such amount. In response to show cause against levy of penalty under section 270A(2), the assessee again specifically contended that assessee has not claimed the amount as expenditure in the succeeding assessment year

Anirudh Baheti HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri B. P. Mundra (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 147Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from the order of the order of the assessing officer for levy of penalty u/s. 271B of the Act, assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) contending that the assessee has not taken delivery of any of the commodities ... books of account audited as per requirement of Section 44AB of the Act but he failed to do so. Hence initiated proceeding for levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act. 2. Your honor, the Ld. AO has proceeded on basis that the turnover of the assessee in respect

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

penalty for an amount of Rs. 79,639/- was ordered to be levied u/s. 271B of the Act by the ld. AO. While levying the penalty the ld. AO has held as under: “Onus is always on the assessee to prove that there is no violation of provision of section ... assessee is not covered under the any reasonable clause and since the assessee has not complied the statutory provisions, the action of levy of penalty by the AO was confirmed. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has preferred this appeal before the tribunal challenging

Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1536/DEL/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR

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

ignoring the contention of the assessee that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, as such mere addition does not lead to levy of penalty. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied

Shreenathji Devlopers, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 134/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)

passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), whereby confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment I.T.A ... accepted by the Assessing Officer and I.T.A No. 130 to 134/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 3 Shreenathji Developers vs. ITO thereby levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each for every default not replying to the 142(1) notices by the assessee. Thus the Ld. A.O. levied

Shreenathji Devlopers, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 133/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)

Shreenathji Devlopers, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 132/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)

Shreenathji Devlopers, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 131/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)