← 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

Sachin Chawla Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.205/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.206/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sachin Chawla Ito Ward-2(1) बनाम/ Vs. B-Xxiii, 2945 Link Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Ganesh Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpc-0079-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate.) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate.) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271A

Accountant Member) 1. By way of these appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, the assessee assails confirmation of quantum addition and consequential levy of penalty u/s 271AAC. The registry has noted delay of 283 days in quantum appeal ITA No.205/Chandi/2025 and delay of 130 days in penalty appeal ... file of Ld. AO for de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The levy of penalty is consequential in nature and therefore, the same is also restored back to Ld. AO for fresh adjudication considering the quantum assessment. 3. Both

Sachin Chawla Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 205/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.205/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.206/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sachin Chawla Ito Ward-2(1) बनाम/ Vs. B-Xxiii, 2945 Link Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Ganesh Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpc-0079-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate.) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate.) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271A

Accountant Member) 1. By way of these appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, the assessee assails confirmation of quantum addition and consequential levy of penalty u/s 271AAC. The registry has noted delay of 283 days in quantum appeal ITA No.205/Chandi/2025 and delay of 130 days in penalty appeal ... file of Ld. AO for de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The levy of penalty is consequential in nature and therefore, the same is also restored back to Ld. AO for fresh adjudication considering the quantum assessment. 3. Both

Paradigm Business Ventures, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1139/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1128/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1129/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1139/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Paradigm Business Ventures Dcit-Circle 1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco 45 Hollywood Plaza Cr Building Vip Road Zirakpur Mohali. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqfp-5590-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit, Virtual) – Ld. Dr & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT, Virtual) – Ld. DR & Dr
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271A

this penalty would not survive. We order so. 6. In ITA No.1139/Chandi/2024 for AY 2016-17, the assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of 20% on additional income of Rs.42 Lacs u/s 271AAB(1). For this year, the assessee agreed to disclose income of Rs.1 Crores. The regular books

Paradigm Business Ventures, Mohali vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1129/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1128/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1129/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1139/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Paradigm Business Ventures Dcit-Circle 1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco 45 Hollywood Plaza Cr Building Vip Road Zirakpur Mohali. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqfp-5590-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit, Virtual) – Ld. Dr & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT, Virtual) – Ld. DR & Dr
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271A

this penalty would not survive. We order so. 6. In ITA No.1139/Chandi/2024 for AY 2016-17, the assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of 20% on additional income of Rs.42 Lacs u/s 271AAB(1). For this year, the assessee agreed to disclose income of Rs.1 Crores. The regular books

Paradigm Business Ventures, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1128/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1128/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1129/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1139/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Paradigm Business Ventures Dcit-Circle 1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco 45 Hollywood Plaza Cr Building Vip Road Zirakpur Mohali. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqfp-5590-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit, Virtual) – Ld. Dr & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT, Virtual) – Ld. DR & Dr
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271A

this penalty would not survive. We order so. 6. In ITA No.1139/Chandi/2024 for AY 2016-17, the assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of 20% on additional income of Rs.42 Lacs u/s 271AAB(1). For this year, the assessee agreed to disclose income of Rs.1 Crores. The regular books