← 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

Mrs Chhaya Himmat Jagda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-32(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 968/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito Ward 32(1)(2) Mrs. Chhaya Himmat C-11, Pratyakshkar Jagda 602-Manas Moti Bhavan, Bandra Kurla बनाम/ Building No. 1 (6Th Floor), Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400 051 Devidas Lane, Near Vs. Lawrence School, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 092 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaepj7836R (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri M. Subramanian, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Praveen Shekhar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 04.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 21.04.2022, Passed By National Faceless

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Shekhar
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Jagda Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in relation to penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2014-15. 2. Assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs. 4,90,000/- on account of sale consideration of Rs. 17,17,275/- treating it as business income instead of capital gain

ACIT of Income Tax Circle-1, Kalyan vs. M/S. Thakor Electronics Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in both the years are dismissed

ITA 1673/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1673 & 1674/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Thakor Electronics Acit Of Income Tax Circle-1 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Ltd. Nagar, Kalyan West-421301 P-1, P-2, 1St Floor, Shree बिधम/ Rajlxmi Hi-Tech Textile Vs. Park, Bhiwandi-Nashik By Pass Road, Sonale Village, Thane-421302 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabct4323M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Thanzil Padvekar, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri U. R. Singh, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 23.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi In Relation To Penalty

For Appellant: Shri Thanzil Padvekar, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri U. R. Singh, Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

order was passed dated 03.10.2016 by the ld.AO. The Ld. A.O. proceed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levy of penalty on concealed income to extent of Rs. 19,43,354/- and penalty was calculated of Rs. 6,66,690/- which

Superflo Filter Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre, Delhi

ITA 1588/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588 & 1589/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) National Faceless Superflo Filters Pvt. Assessment Centre, Ltd. Delhi B-5/103-104 Greenland बनाम/ Co-Op. Society, Vs. Shrinivas Bagarka Road, J. B. Nagar Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs4955N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri U. Singh, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 23.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 31.05.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U. Singh, Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

same were heard together and disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 3. In AY 2010-11, assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs. 47,904/- on account of estimated disallowance of GP rate on alleged non-genuine purchases. Similarly in AY 2011-12, assessee is aggrieved ... levy of penalty of Rs. 5,26,047/- on the same ground. 4. The facts in brief are that in AY 2010-11, AO on the basis of certain information received from Sale Tax Department noted that assessee had made purchases of Rs. 12,40,195/- from 3 parties which

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

ITA 1540/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 2(14)Section 48

hence, the entire penalty proceedings are vitiated. 15. We further observe that in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. However, while levying penalty vide order dated 31/03/2016

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

ITA 817/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 2(14)Section 48

hence, the entire penalty proceedings are vitiated. 15. We further observe that in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. However, while levying penalty vide order dated 31/03/2016