“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

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6117/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that at the time of passing of appellate order against the levy of penalty by the ld CIT(A), the quantum appeals were pending before the ld CIT(A). Subsequently, the quantum appeals were disposed ... only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act when the penalty notice had not struck off the inappropriate portion as to whether the assessee had under-reported his income

Reliance Ritu Kumar Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ritika Private Limited), Tilag Marg, Delhi vs. Addl. CIT Central Range-1, Delhi

ITA 294/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Khurana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269Section 271Section 271DSection 273

only identical issue involved in both these appeals is as to whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271 DA of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials ... Range 1, New Delhi vide letter dated 30-9-2019 for violation of provisions of section 269 ST of the Act, thereby warranting levy of penalty under section 271 DA of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee had made certain cash sales more than 2 lakhs

Reliance Ritu Kumar Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ritika Private Limited), Tilak Mark, Delhi vs. Addl. CIT Central Range-1, Delhi

ITA 293/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Khurana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269Section 271Section 271DSection 273

Xcelris Labs Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 32/AHD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)

assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"), dated 06.12.2021 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and relates to Assessment Year ... that in identical facts and circumstances, the ITAT having found the disallowance of depreciation to be not sustainable, there was no case for levy of penalty on the same in the case of the assessee. 9. Ld. DR, however, countered by stating that the case of Flourish Purefoods

Manoj Kundanmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3627/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 270A

against order dated 29/03/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s.270A for the A.Y.2017-18. 2. The assessee has challenged levy of penalty of Rs.11,30,734/- on account of under reporting of income. It had been submitted that in the quantum proceedings ... statistical purposes. 3. Thus, when entire assessment order has been set aside to be decided afresh then, there is no question of any levy of penalty u/s.270A arising from the said quantum order. Accordingly, the penalty levied by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted

Income Tax Officer 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Micro Plantae Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2926/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Since there was a low tax effect, assessee did not contest this disallowance made in the assessment order. The ld. AO has levied the penalty on the ground that, since assessee has not 3 ITA No.2926/Mum/2025 & CO No.123/Mum/2025 Micro Plantea Limited preferred any appeal or contested the disallowance, therefore, penalty ... already discussed above, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on this ground alone. For deciding the issue of levy of penalty under the section, the points discussed in para 20(d) above are to be considered. In the instant case, the appellant's contention

Ashoka Tubewell Boring Engineering & Construction, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-2, Patna

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

ITA 90/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajhariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Neeraj Jindal [(2017) 393 (TR 1 {Del)], it was held, as follows, by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court: - The levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c} of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not automatic. For levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) , the conditions laid ... that similar issue came for adjudication before this Tribunal in the case of Hitech Construction (supra), in which also examining the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the undisclosed income offered to tax in the return and the same being accepted

Aravinda Bhupathiraju Rep by Gpa Holder Sri Kar Bahadur Sri Raja, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (Internal Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. (It). No.262/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Aravinda Bhupathiraju Vs. Asst. Cit (International Taxation) Rep. By. Gpa Holder Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, K.A.R. Bahadur Sri Raja Sankaramatam Road Falt No. 502, Sky Aditya Apartment Visakhapatnam- 530016 Gitams Road, Yendada Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530045 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Bjopb0898P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld. AO issued show-cause notice calling for objections for levying of penalty. Since assessee was not responsive, Ld. AO proceeded to levy penalty of Rs.17,66,614/- being 100% tax ought to be evaded. 3. On being aggrieved ... against the assessment order, the amount of capital gains chargeable to tax would be 'Nil' and as such there is no scope for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 5. The sole

Kosanam Rama Rao, Guntur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 226/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

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

u/s.271D amounting to Rs.46,76,000/- by the Assessing Officer. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued for levy of penalty u/s.271D of the I.T.Act is invalid in law and consequent penalty order passed is without Jurisdiction in the absence of requisite satisfaction ... 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

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1375/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1368/Hyd/2024 To 1373/Hyd/2024 & 1375/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16) Sitarama Rao Avva Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle-2(4) Pan : Abspa6536E Hyderabad

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

supply of the penalty orders, which have been supplied to the assessee, only on 20.05.2025, which shows that the impugned orders of levy of penalty were not served upon the assessee, prior to supply of these orders by the AO on 20.05.2025. Thus, the Ld.AR has pleaded that the delay

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1373/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1372/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle- 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1371/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1370/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1369/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sitarama Rao Avva, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1368/HYD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: CA P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sri Ganessh Chit Fund, Ganjam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Berhampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 58/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Sri Ganesh Chit Fund Hanuman Bazar, Gundalavari Ito, Ward-2, Berhampur Street Brahmapur Ganjam- Odisha Vs. 760002, Orissa (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aawfs5606G Assessee By : Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Panda, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nishanth Rao B, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271A

interest have been paid and the penalty proceedings were requested to be dropped. It was the submission that the ld. AO proceeded to levy the penalty u/s 270A of the Act and the ld. CIT (A), NFAC has confirmed the said levy of penalty u/s 270A ... Fund; A.Y. 2017-18 04. It was the submission that the ld. AO ought to have granted the assessee the immunity from the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 05. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order

M/S. Green Earth Biogas Pvt. Ltd., Surendranagar vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 185/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 263

preceding order is loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as if it were the total income. Hence, non-levy of penalty is an error which is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, Show- Cause Notice for initiation of proceedings

Raj Soya Export & Investment Limited, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Indore

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

ITA 809/IND/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiraj Soya Export & Nfac, बनाम/ Investment Limited, Delhi Vs. E-14, Saket Nagar, Indore (Pan: Aaecr8686C) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

appellant has merely filed an appeal but had not pursued the same by filing requisite details to substantiate his claim. Therefore, the levy of penalty as challenged in the Grounds of Appeal 2005-06 and in the Appeal Memo are hereby confirmed. 5.8 Accordingly, the appeal of the Appellant

Seema Jain, Indore vs. ITO 1(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 591/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50Section 50C

Jain ITA No. 591/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (C) on technical breach of section 50C which is not sustainable in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances