“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

Shankarbhai Virabhai Patel, Dahod vs. ITO Ward-1, Dahod

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

ITA 2219/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parag Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 194CSection 44ASection 69ASection 80T

come to ITA No. 2219/Ahd/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) 8. The assessee's appeal in ITA No. 2219/Ahd/2024 relates to appeal against levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) of the Act. In this case, the Assessing Officer held that in view of the additions made under Section 69A r.w.s.115BBE ... assessee was directed to pay a sum of Rs.71,25,912/- under Section 115BBE(1) of the Act. 9. In appeal against levy of penalty, Ld. CIT(A) dimissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing of appeal under Section 249(3) of the Act, refusing

Shankarbhai Virabhai Patel, Dahod vs. ITO Ward-1, Dahod

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

ITA 2218/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parag Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 194CSection 44ASection 69ASection 80T

DCIT-5(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan vs. Interjewel Pvt Ltd, Opera House

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2332/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. Interjewel Private Limited, 1508, Prasad Income Tax, Ward – 5(2)(1), बनाम Chambers, Opera House, Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, Mumbai, –400004, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Maharashtra Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd5877B .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D(3)

penalty on the ground there is no adjustment made in the ALP even though adjustment to ALP is not a precondition for levy of penalty u/s 271G. 7. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and confirm the order

Vijaya Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 28/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

case of ‘reasonable cause’ as contemplated u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the assessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make a useful reference to the landmark decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa

Vijaya Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 27/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

Vijaya Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 26/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

Vijaya Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 25/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

Vijaya Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 24/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

Vijaya Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 23/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

Limagrain India Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 546/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92D

Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative ITA No.546/Hyd/2025 4 (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the only ground of appeal of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271G of the Act. It was contended that the assessee had furnished all relevant documentation as required under section

Satish Kumar Jain, Prop. M/S Jain Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 563/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 563/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Satish Kumar Jain Ito बनाम/ Vs. H No 579 Airport Road Panama Chowk Rani Bagh, Jammu-180003 Jammu-180004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ablpj-6598-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri K.R. Jain (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit)– Ld. Sr Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30-08- 2024 Confirming Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 221(1) Vide Order Dated 29-06-2017. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 143(3) On 19-12-2016. The Assessee Declared Income Of Rs.9.75 Lacs. The Assessee Claimed

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Jain (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT)– Ld. Sr DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 221(1)Section 80I

Though the assessee opposed the same, Ld. AO held that there was no reasonable cause for non-payment of taxes and accordingly, he levied impugned penalty of Rs.14.40 Lacs u/s 221(1). 3. During appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated that AMT liability was not paid since earlier counsel expired ... Madras in the case of Smt. Vijayanthimala (108 ITR 882) which held that the default must be willful and not accidental. The levy of penalty would depend upon particular facts and circumstances of each case which will primarily concern whether the default was willful or mere incidental. We find that

The Bramhing Multi Purpose Co-Op Societyltd, Belgaum vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belgaum

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Section 269SSection 271D

assesse has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining the levy of penalty u/sec271D of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a cooperative credit society and has filed the return of income ... explanations. Whereas, the 3 ITA. No. 108/PAN/2025 The Bramhing Multi Purpose Co-op Society Limited. AO was not satisfied with the submissions and levied a penalty of Rs.3,87,700/- and passed the order u/s 271D of the Act dated 19-09-2023. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order

Jar Metal Industries(P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-13(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 9695/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

receipt of the above order, fresh opportunity was afforded by the AO to the assessee vide show cause notice dated 06.03.2017 for the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response thereto the assessee filed its reply vide letter dated 08.03 2017. The relevant extract ... vide written submission dated nil 6.1.(a). submitted the brief facts of the case and the chronology of the events leading to the levy of penalty. The same is reproduced as under:- The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company filed its return of income

Jar Metal Industries(P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-13(2), New Delhi

ITA 9694/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

Verambally Thazhikuniyil Vinodan, Kozhikode vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi

ITA 350/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 274

effect, the assessee was forced to receive the balance amount of consideration in cash. However, JCIT rejected the above contention and proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 4,16,49,500/- being 50% share of the assessee in the sale consideration. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before ... validity of initiation of penalty proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) also held that ignorance does not constitute reasonable cause. Accordingly, confirmed the levy of penalty. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the initiation

Badri Narayan Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 341/JPR/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Or Before Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 271ASection 271BSection 4Section 44A

assessment year 2010-11. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the order for levy of penalty on 21.06.2018 2 Badri Narayan Choudhary vs. ITO passed under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by the Income Tax Officer ... other of 271B but the facts were same as decided by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has already settled the dispute of levy of penalty as per provision of section 271A of the Act under the DTVSV Act 2020 and the assessee did not prefer the appeal against

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

illegal and bad in law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.72,45,844/- u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act It has further erred in confirming the levy of penalty even on addition for which no penalty ... illegal and bad in law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.26,38,078/- u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. 2.1 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 309/JPR/2025

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

illegal and bad in law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.72,45,844/- u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. It has further erred in confirming the levy of penalty even on addition for which no penalty ... illegal and bad in law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.26,38,078/- u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. 2.1 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 309/JPR/2025

Bioagile Therapeutics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 376/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, Ld. Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 80Section 80I

sought to be evaded u/s. 270A of the Act. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the levy of penalty by filling 1st appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who by taking cognizance of facts, as mentioned by the AO in the penalty order, Page 3 of 6 ultimately, affirmed the levy ... statute”. 9. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that simply making a claim which is not accepted or disallowed, cannot entail the levy of penalty. The penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party Page 5 of 6 obliged either acted deliberately in defiance

ACIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hari Krishna Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 3618/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankaracit 5(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Hari Krishna Exports Pvt Ltd Room No.568, 5Th Floor, 1701-B, 17Th Floor, The Capital Bk, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 051 020 Pan: Aacch8430N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 40

order under section 201. Consequently, there would be a levy of interest in terms of section 201(1A) as well as a levy of penalty under section 271C, if such failure was without reasonable cause. The amount of tax that could have been recovered from the payer would be equivalent