“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

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2524/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

defeat the very purpose of Search/Survey operations as they fail to bring the undisclosed income to tax in a sustainable manner leave alone levy of penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2523/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2522/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

ACIT - CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2521/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

Jeni Ahay Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(1) (C), Vashi

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

ITA 1930/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalejeni Abhay Shah Vs. Ito – 27(1)(5) 902, A Wing, Bldg Vashi Rly Station No.88, R.S. Money, Navi Mumabi – Supermarket, Vrushali 400701. Apartments, Tilak Nagar, Mumbai – 400089. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Axvps3431M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri S.N.Kabra.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Jeni Abhay Shah, Mumbai 1. The Ld. Ao Erred On Facts & In Law In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) On Adhoc & On Unverified Presumptive Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.N.kabra.Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Jeni Abhay Shah, Mumbai the grounds of appeal and the submissions of the assessee but the confirmed the action of the A.O in levy of penalty and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal with the Hon’ble Tribunal ... heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O based on the assessment order under section 143 r.w.s 147 of the Act. We find

Sri. Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2474/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. This appeal by the assessee for the AY 2014-15 is with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since we have remitted the issue relating to quantum addition in ITA No.1910/Bang/2019 in this assessment year ... levy of penalty at this stage is pre- ITA No.1910 & 2474/Bang/2019 Sri Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore Page 11 of 11 matured. Accordingly, the issue is remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the same after taking a decision on quantum additions. 7. In the result, both the appeals

Sri Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1910/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

ADIT(It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1826/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2001-2002

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Kanojiya (DR)

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

Linklaters 3. Meanwhile, the AO gave effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and also issued notice of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and passed the penalty order dated 10.03.2006, levying penalty of Rs.1,24,73,238/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal ... case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. I am satisfied that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty w/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied

Kshema Geo Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 598/BANG/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajinish Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT -DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(viia)

assessee’s authorized representative appeared and furnished the proof of payment of tax, however, did not furnish any written submission against the proposed levy of penalty, since he was not sure to which year penalty notice has been issued. It was stated that the A.O. instead of giving another hearing ... return filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act. However, the authorized representative did not furnish any written submission against the proposed levy of penalty. Thereafter, the A.O. passed penalty order without giving any other hearing date. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view

Swati Jignesh Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1971/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available ... assessments were ultimately completed u/s.143(3) of the Act. Hence, we deem it fit that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. We direct the ld. AO to delete the said penalty. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Salasar Derivatives Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1916/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Ao On 29/05/2018 Being The Scheduled Date Of Hearing. However, On 30/05/2018, The Assessee Had Duly Appeared & Submitted The Relevant Papers Physically Before The Ld. Ao. However, The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Levy Penalty U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act For Non-Compliance On The Scheduled Date Of Hearing & Levied Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- Thereon Vide Order U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act Dated 13/05/2019. This Penalty Was Upheld By The Ld. Cit(A).

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

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. A written submission ... ACIT reported in 88 Taxman.com 803 (Visakhapatnam Trib.) 3.2. Hence, we deem it fit that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. We direct the ld. AO to delete the said penalty. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Rajendra Tubes & Fittings, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for both the assessment years, since no change in facts or law could be brought to our notice

ITA 1513/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (DR)

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

possession of purchase documents. There could be multiple reason for non-production of a third party. It is also settled legal position that levy of penalty is not automatic and merely because the quantum additions were accepted, the same could not automatically lead to imposition of penalty unless the assessee

Rajendra Tubes & Fittings, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for both the assessment years, since no change in facts or law could be brought to our notice

ITA 1512/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (DR)

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

Asst. CIT 32 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kapu Gems, Mumbai

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

ITA 6713/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asst. Comm. Of Income Tax 32(2), M/S Kapu Gems, 720, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, E Tower, Ec-3021, Bharat C-41 To C-43, G Block Bkc, Vs. Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Bandra East, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadfk 3266 D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Deharia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. K.A. Vaidyalingan, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. K.A. Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Deharia, DR

Section 271GSection 92DSection 92D(3)

maintaining the segmental details of AEs and M/s Kapu Gems 3 non-AEs transactions transactions. The Ld. Assessing Officer accordingly, levied accordingly, levied the penalty under section 271G of the the penalty under section 271G of the Act concluding as under: concluding as under: “8. In view of the above ... have rightly observed and held that Tribunal have rightly observed and held that the PO was not the PO was not justified in levying the penalty under Section 271G nder Section 271G of the Income Tax Act. We are in complete agreement with the Income

Chiron Behring Vaccines P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2705/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Harsh SangoiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(1)Section 5(2)Section 6

Appellant placed on record (a) declaration and undertaking in Form 1 wherein disclosure was made about the present appeal pertaining to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, (b) certificate in Form 3 issued under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act [Acknowledgement

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3695/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

nature of reimbursement and sample invoices of third party in relation to the same. 4. In dismissing the Appellant's petition for non-levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the grounds of appeal referred above is separate, and may kindly be considered independent

Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3674/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.Achal Sharma. CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vijay Mehta.AR

Section 114Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)

case of Raghuvir Soni Vs. ACIT 258 ITR 239 (Rai), the Hon' ble High Court has held that the provisions relating to levy of penalty for concealment of income have been materially altered with effect from April 1. 1976. It is now clearly postulated that where any amount is added ... case and relying upon the above mentioned Supreme Court and High Court judgment, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the penalty leviable W/s. 271(1)(c) on total escaped income

Blues Innovations India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1331/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalblues It Innovations Vs. Ito – 12(1)(3) India Pvt Ltd., Ab 145A, Aayakar B-101, Bhumi Enclave, Bhavan, Mahaveer Nagar, Mumbai -400020. Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4562D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal and the submissions of the assessee but the confirmed the action of the A.O in Blues IT Innovation India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai levy of penalty and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal with the Hon’ble Tribunal ... heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O based on the assessment order under section 143 of the Act. We find

Mr. Budnar Jayakar Shetty, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. PriyadrshiniBasaganni, D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 57Section 69A

assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-2, Panaji dated 2.12.2021 for the assessment year 2016-17, wherein he confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. 2. Facts of the case are that assessee filed original ... Rs.23,83,069/-. The first ground of appeal is allowed.” 3. Now the assessee is in appeal before us with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that the penalty cannot be sustained in view of the deletion