← 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

Shri Bhupinder Kumar Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5378/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL

Shri Bhupinder Kumar Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5377/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL

M/S. Keerthi International Products Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5375/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL

M/S. Nova Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5364/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL

Smt. Shobha Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5362/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL

Smt. Puja Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5361/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL

Smt. Puja Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5360/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL

Sh. Kapil Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5315/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL

Sh. Kapil Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5314/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL

Smt. Aarti Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5313/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL

Smt. Aarti Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5312/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL

Transgulf Frozen Foods Containers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5117/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 44A

order as well. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty provision being quasi judicial, unless there is specific charge there cannot be levy of penalty. Therefore, the order levying penalty is wrong and bad in law. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Transgulf Frozen Foods Containers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5116/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 44A

order as well. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty provision being quasi judicial, unless there is specific charge there cannot be levy of penalty. Therefore, the order levying penalty is wrong and bad in law. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Instyle Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 12(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7086/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

order as well. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty provision being quasi judicial, unless there is specific charge there cannot be levy of penalty. Therefore, the order levying penalty is wrong and bad in law. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Agemo Exim Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Meerut

ITA 3517/DEL/2016[1999-2000]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 1999-2000

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Agemo Exim Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Agemo Leather Ward-1(1), Components Pvt. Ltd ) Meerut Ashwani Kumar Jain, Managing Director, 82/1, Railway Road, Meerut City, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabca9965E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praksh Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80H

authorities. In the present case the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed by the ld AO on 21.03.2014 levying a penalty of Rs. 70 lacs. The penalty was initiated vide assessment order dated 22.12.2006 where in it is found that the bogus export to Russia ... which is rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) has categorically held that order of the levy of penalty passed by the ld AO has considered all the facts and does not have any error, which could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. In our considered

Dhanyata Enterprises Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 404/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 57

interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C being mandatory and consequential in nature is dismissed. 10. Ground of Appeal Number.5 relating to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) being premature at this juncture is dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. 20 ITA.No

Shri Krishna Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 6758/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2013-14

Section 271(1)(c)

furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not certain even at the time of levying the penalty as what default the assessee has committed for which the penalty was imposed. The Ld. AR has submitted that the initiation of the penalty proceedings ... case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income, the Assessing Officer is required to levy the penalty on definite charge, which should be reflected in the penalty order as to whether the assessee is guilty of concealment of particular of income or furnishing

ACIT, Circle- 22(2), New Delhi vs. Saveer Biotech Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6952/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

income to the extent of Rs. 1,96,57,885/-. The Assessing Officer also held that this is a fit case for levy of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 58,97,366/- vide penalty order dated 31.08.2016. 4. Being aggrieved

True Blue Finlease Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC- 29, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4016/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

mentioned, does not satisfy requirement of law. 5. Ld. DR argued that the assessed was well aware of the reason of levy of penalty and has indeed replied to the show cause notice. 6. We have gone through the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer and find that

Aum Jewels, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 30(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the six captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 5470/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271A

this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in all the six captioned appeals relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short]. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case