“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

United Steel Allied Industries Pvt Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, M Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad, SV, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 274

computation of loss to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that, it is a under- reporting of income, which warrants levy of penalty under 3 ITA.No.908/Hyd./2025 section 270A of the Act. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee company observed that ... ITA.No.908/Hyd./2025 consequence of misreporting of income. The Assessing Officer in the penalty order has not specified under which limb, he has levied the penalty, whether for under-reporting of income or under-reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income, except stating that, penalty @ 50% has been levied

Nimmatoori Sulochana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

ought to have appreciated that the addition of Rs.1,62,70,380/- in the assessment made and the levy of penalty for the same amount of Rs.1,62,70,380/-leads to double taxation. 4 ITA.Nos.602 & 603/Hyd./2025 d. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that ... relation to transfer of any immovable property whether or not, the transfer takes place”. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty u/sec.271D of the Act for accepting cash for sale of immovable property within the meaning of the “specified sum” as defined u/sec.269SS

Nimmatoori Yashoda, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 602/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4647/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A). The Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that without awaiting for adjudication of the said appeal, the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order confirming the levy of penalty. It was submitted that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal challenging the levy of penalty only after taking into consideration the result of the quantum appeal. It was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Assessee that in view of the aforesaid facts, impugned order be set aside.

For Appellant: Shri Virabhadra MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Mohammed Shahab Akram Khan

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

material on record. 4. By way of present appeal the Assessee has challenged the Order, dated 05/02/2025, passed by CIT(A) whereby the levy of penalty INR 19,00,040/- under Section 270A of the Act was confirmed. 5. Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Assessee submitted that ... Authorized Representative submitted that without awaiting for adjudication of the said appeal, the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order confirming the levy of penalty. It was submitted that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal challenging the levy of penalty only after taking into consideration the result

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6315/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

ESIC u/s 36(1)(VA) r.w.s. 2(24)(X) was dismissed. Vide order dated 20.02.2024 penalty order u/s 270A was passed and levied on penalty of 3,08,73,106/- for under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting of income.Aggrieved by the penalty levied, the appellant has filed ... order challenged in the present appeal. Thus,the assessee/appellant is in appeal before us and has raised following grounds. “Ground of Appeal No.1: Levy of penalty on deemed rental income" is bad in law a. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying penalty on addition on account of deemed

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6309/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

Kanodia Technoplast Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act is

ITA 1355/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 132ASection 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 270Section 270ASection 274Section 37

read with section 270A of the Act was issued. After considering the explanation submitted by the assessee the Assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs. 1,49,586/- against the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed the appeal before ... income or under — reporting of income. Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that this is not a case of misreporting of income attracting levy of penalty. He also submitted that the penalty cannot be levied on the debatable issue. Reliance has placed on the following decisions: (i) ITA No. 1861/Del/2017

Sumit Jindal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 450/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153A

Sumit Jindal Vs.The Dy. C.I.T ITA No. 450/DEL/2023 [A.Y 2019-20] 12. In this assessee’s appeal, the issue is with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271B. Grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law by confirming the penalty ... books of account audited within the stipulated time. Therefore in my considered opinion this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271B of Income Tax Act and there is no justification for the undersigned to interfere with the order of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the order imposing penalty

Sumit Jindal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1064/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153A

Pradeep Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 1522/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

thereby ground no. 6 to 6.4 raised by the assessee are allowed. 16. Ground no. 7 & 8 relates the levy of penalty u/s 270A and 271AAC of the Act which are separate and independent proceeding and since the same is not levied and disputed the said grounds so taken

Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

appellate authority. Hence, to read s. 263 as being applicable only in case of an AO for the purposes of initiation and levy of penalty and not being applicable to the appellate authority, cannot be the legislative intent. To the contrary, the inherent indication under s. 271(1) makes

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

Rs.8,84,97,504/- made by the Assessing Officer, ITA No.1242/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and ITA No.1243/PUN/2025 relates

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1242/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

Income-Tax Officer-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vibgyor Texotech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4705/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

total income was finally determined at ₹21,02,57,100/-. Consequent thereto, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee for levy of penalty, and after considering its submissions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of ₹7,07,78,990/-. 2.1 In appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

Lalaram Bagra, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 837/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.A. Verma, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271F

narration so made by the ld.CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’1. The ground nos.1,2 & 5 are against levy of penalty u/s 271F of Rs.5,000/- for not filing the ITR for the A.Y. 2010-11 on the ground that he did not have taxable income

Anguri Devi Khandelwal (Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir), Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 390/JPR/2025 निधर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2018-19 Smt.Anguri Devi Khandelwal Shri Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir) 674, Khandaka Mansion, Bordi Ka Rasta Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur – 302 001 बनाम Vs. The DCIT Circle-4 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIHPK 4203 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA राजस्व की ओरसे

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case .CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’’ 2 SMT. ANGURI DEVI KHANDELWAL (SHRI RADHA MOHAN KHANDELWAL – LEGAL HEIR VS DCIT ... CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 2.1 Apropos solitary ground of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- Decision The assessee

Air Wind Green Energy Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 147Section 263Section 270A(9)Section 37Section 69C

unjustifiable, unlawful, unwarranted and without jurisdictions. The order passed by the Lrd. PCIT to modified the original assessment order to the extent of levy of penalty u/s. 270A(9) of the IT Act deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. The Lrd. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Ahmedabad

Vijay Shambhuling Popade, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Latur, Latur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 1198/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha, Addl.CIT

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

during the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and even in the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) against the levy of penalty of Rs. 9,26,979/-. These series of events indicates that assessee is not serious in prosecuting his appeal before the Ld.CIT

Bhel Lcc Society Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 732/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bhel Lcc Society Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaatb6430D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Sai Keerthana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA Sri Sai KeerthanaFor Respondent: : Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 270ASection 36

Accordingly, the case of the assessee does not fall in any of the conditions provided u/s 270A of the Act attracting the levy of penalty. Once the condition as stipulated u/s 270A are not satisfied, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer vide the impugned order is not sustainable ... found that the conditions specified in Section 270A of the Act could not be invoked and so also regarding levy of penalty. The Tribunal noticed that the case is not covered under the provisions of section 270A(2)(a) of the Act for the reason that the income assessed