“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

Adarsh Gramin Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 575/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.575 & 490/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: AdjournmentFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. So far as ITA No.490/PUN/2025 is concerned, the same is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act at ₹9,47,471. We note that the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A) against this penalty is also

Adarsh Gramin Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 490/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.575 & 490/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: AdjournmentFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

Biraja Realcon Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Bbsr, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 576/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.576/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Biraja Realcon Private Limited, Plot Vs Jcit, Range-1, No.29, Basundhara Colony, Bhubaneswar. Naharkanta, Hansapal, Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aafcb 5362 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition) : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 5 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 5 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: None (Adjournment petition)

Section 271(1)(d)

assessee to represent the case but there was no response to the notices. The issue in this appeal is against the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(d) of the Act. As there was no representation, the ld CIT(A) had no option but to dismiss the appeal of the assessee

Sanghi Textiles Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 758/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.758/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Sanghi Textiles Vs. Income Tax Officer Private Limited Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcs0837P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

considering the submissions filed by the assessee, the Ld. AO completed the penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act on 21.09.2022 and levied a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the only issue arising out of the grounds of appeal of the assessee is the levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- under section 271B of the Act. Inviting our attention to para no. 6 of the penalty order, the Ld. Page

Joseph Abraham Peter Joseph, Madurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Revenue Building, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.M. Muriga Boopathy, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 271(1)(c)

income’; and hence, the Ld AR asserts that the penalty imposed for concealing the particulars of income, is bad in law which vitiates levy of penalty. 4. In respect of the aforesaid legal issue, first of all we perused the impugned show cause notice (SCN) issued ... held such notices to be bad in law for not specifying the specific fault for which the assessee was being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And such actions of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts including the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court

Cambridge Construction (Delhi) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4939/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandracambridge Construction Vs. Ito, Ward 5(3) (Delhi) Private Limited New Delhi – 110002 11, Monnet House, Masjid Moth, New Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacc0295N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. VK Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowances on the basis of which penalty of Rs.2,70,00,000/- have been levied by the AO stands deleted and therefore levy of penalty has lost the substratum however in the impugned order of CIT(A) confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act subsequent decisions

Proton Positive Health Care India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 812/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which leads to penalty U/s 271(1). 5. The Assessing Officer is not justified in levy of penalty without recording any proper satisfaction in the Assessment order ie., whether for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income and hence invalid

Orissa Rural Housing and Development Corporation Limited(Orhdc), Khorda vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 516/CTK/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 43B

interest on Government loans, just because the assessee has accepted the disallowance made by the AO, would not lead to an automatic levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. The fact that the addition itself is not called for, it is evident from the fact that

Orissa Rural Housing and Development Corporation Limited(Orhdc), Khorda vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 515/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 43B

Hotel Pranaminn Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

levy of panty has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings, obviously legs for the levy of penalty no more survives. This being so, we are of the view that the delay before the ld. CIT(A) should have been condoned and the appeal should have

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 263/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

pertinent to note that the disclosure of additional income in the statement recorded under section 132(4) Itself is not sufficient to levy the penalty under section 271AAB of the Act until and unless the income so disclosed by the assessee falls in the definition of undisclosed income defined ... assessment proceedings about the true nature of surrender made by the assessee does not arise and only when the AO has proposed to levy the penalty then it is a pre-condition for invoking the provisions of section 271AAB that the said income disclosed by 4 ITA No.261-263/CTK/2025 the assessee

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 262/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

DCIT 19.1 Mumbai, Lalbag Mumbai vs. Ambika Diamonds, Bkc Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5873/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: None

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee by reducing the GP rate to 4% of bogus purchases. The AO subsequently initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) to levy a penalty of Rs. 35,899/-. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee contended that no penalty ... before the Tribunal, the disallowance was confirmed @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases vide ITA No. 5355/M/2015 & 5689/M/3016 dated 18.08.2017. 3. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessing officer levied the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. In appeal against

Etesh P. Jain(Karta), Shree Darshan Pipes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

invited our attention in appellate order para 6 which is extracted as below:- “6. The Appellant therefore with reference to levy of penalty respectfully submit that there is neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of particulars of income. The addition / disallowances made by the AO are only estimated addition

Etesh Prakash Jain (Karta), Shree Darshan Pipes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5819/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Ajaydas Ukey, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5759/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

dated 05.07.2025 for Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17. The issued contended by the assessee through the grounds of appeal pertain to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income ... compliance of various notices issued by the AO. The AO passed an order u/s. 271(1)(b) levying a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- towards failure to response to the notice u/s. 142(1) dated 11.08.2022 and 13.10.2023. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before

Etesh Prakash Jain(HUF), Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5734/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Geetaben Thakorbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 558/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Diesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 558/Srt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Geetaben Thakorbhai Patel Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat D2, Jalaram Society, Piplod, Surat – Current Jurisdiction 395007 Ito, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apspp3192F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

dated 09.12.2019. Similarly, AO concluded penalty proceedings u/s. 272A(1) (d) of I. T. Act as reasoned in the penalty order resulting in levy of penalty as per law vide order of AO dated 24.10.2019. 4. The assessee has filed an appeal before

Fuji Electric India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Siddhesh Chaugula, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 92C

effectively addressed and as such there is no necessity to deal with this ground separately. :-10-: ITA. No.:701/Chny/2025 18. Ground No.8: Levy of penalty: We find this ground is consequential and it does not separate adjudication. 19. In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed