“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

Pooran Singh, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 195/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

amount of Rs. 58,525/- as per provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from these different order for levy of penalty the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding ... failure to comply with statutory notices issued. During the penalty proceedings also, the appellant was non-compliant and hence the AO levied the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4.2. The ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the appellant pertains to the single issue

Pooran Singh, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 194/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Hasmukhlal Ishvarlal Patel, Patan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 764/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 270A

income. Therefore, the penalty levied is unjustified and should be deleted.” 9. In so far as the assessee’s appeal pertaining to levy of penalty is concerned, looking into the assessee’s set of facts as narrated above, in the interests of justice, we hold that penalty is not liable

Hasmukhlal Ishvarlal Patel, Patan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 763/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 270A

Lakhubhai Nathubhai Sisodiya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(3), Ahmedabad, Current ITO Ward 3(1)(2)

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

ITA 716/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

assessee a reasonable opportunity to present his case on merits and allowed the assessee to bring complete facts on record, particularly when levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was in question. In view of the above, we set aside the order passed

Tfdac Ireland II Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(1)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1198/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A read with section 274 of the Act; (i) Whether an incorrect rate of tax has been applied; and (j) Whether the same

Dae(Sy22) Leasing (Ireland)41, Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1157/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Dae (Sabs) Leasing Ireland 43 Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax.Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1156/MUM/2025[2022-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-22

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Dae (Sabs) 10296 Ireland Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation), Cirlce 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1155/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under Section 270A read with Section 274 of the Act; (i) Whether an incorrect rate of tax has been applied; and (j) Whether the same

Sky High Xliii Leasing Company Limited, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4 (2) (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1122/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A read with section 274 of the Act; 6 ITA No.1198/Mum/2025 and others (i) Whether an incorrect rate of tax has been applied

Ortus Aircraft Lease 5( Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 1108/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Ortus Aircraft Lease 6(Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 1106/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Promila Singhal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Range 2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5841/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 5841/Del/2024 (A.Y 2015-16) Promila Singhal, Vs Acit C/O.D-22, Second Floor, South Range (1)1 Extension, 1, Room No. 210, Income New Delhi Tax Office, Cgo Complex, Pan: Acqps3116D 1, Purani Hapur/Chungi, Ghaziabad Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Adv, Sh. Divyansh Dubey, Adv, Sh. Shivam Kukreja, Adv & Sh. Shantanu Jain, Adv Revenue By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ESection 275(1)

during the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of recording any satisfaction, the initiation of penalty and the levy of penalty is illegal and void-ab-initio. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relied on the Judgment of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City

Maleckunnel Philip Varghese, Sambalpur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 258/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.256/Ctk/2025 & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.258/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Maleckunnel Philip Varghese Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur At/Po/Ps: Ainthapali, Dist : Sambalpur-768004 Pan No. :Abvpv 8418 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena & Narahari Swain, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025

For Appellant: Sh P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena &For Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

drew our attention to the assessment order. It was the submission that in the assessment order there is no satisfaction recorded for the levy of penalty u/s.271D or 271E of the Act. Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... view, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is required to be recorded because the officer, who passed the assessment order would not be levying the penalty under Sec.271D of the Act, unless it is recorded in the assessment order, he cannot refer the file to superior officer i.e., Joint Commissioner

Maleckunnel Philip Varghese, Sambalpur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 256/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena &For Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

Moqeetur Rahman Khan, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/LKW/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramoqeetur Rahman Khan V. Ito-4 971, Mannan Manzil, Sadar Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Bazar, Lucknow G.P.O, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agrpr4785N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

provisions of Section 44AB r.w.s. 271B of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for the levy of penalty.” 8. As per provisions of Section 271B of the I.T. Act, penalty for above default shall be a sum equal to one-half percent

Shree Sharanavasaceshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali, Halingali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Shree Sharanabasaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali Ito Tq Jamkhandi, Dt Bagalkot Vs. Ward-1 Halingali, Karnataka 587315 Bagalkot Pan No :Aaeas6699C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 07.11.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070176573(1) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

discharge the burden of proof lying on them by giving any reliable and cogent reasons for furnishing the inaccurate particulars and accordingly, levied the penalty @100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.20,18,882/-. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty order passed under section ... claim under section 80P of the Act may not be themselves justify a penalty. The Hon’ble High Court held that the “levy of penalty is not matter of course. It has to be found that the assessee concealed any income. Where there is no concealment or no material

Upendra Kumar Soni, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Corcle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 827/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

sundry creditors in its books of account but assessee failed to furnish any evidence regarding transactions which led to credit from said creditors, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was justified. The head notes of the decision is as under- "Section 68, read with section ... further held that since there was no material available on record before revenue which would have persuaded them to take a contrary decision, levy of penalty was justified -Whether SLP filed by assessee against impugned order of High Court was to be dismissed -Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour

Upendra Kumar Soni, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle-Kota, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 826/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

Jayshree Nilam Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Intl. Taxn., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 942/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271A(1)(d)Section 272(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)

failure to comply with the notices under section 142(1). 5. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) confirmed the levy of penalty. With the following observations: “8.5 On plain reading of the section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, it is found that any assessee has failed to comply with a notice ... will be liable for levy of penalty u/s.272(1)(d) of the Act. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the instant case, the appellant had not only failed to comply with a notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 09.01.2023 & 18.01.2023 but also failed to comply