← 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

Venkateshwar Reddy Attigada, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2013-14 and 2016-17 are allowed

ITA 1285/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“the Ld.CIT(A)”) in confirming the levy of penalty at Rs.3,88,410/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld.CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad fail to note that ... Appellant had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the levy of penalty is unsustainable and must be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to any of the aforesaid grounds a mere incorrect claim made in the Return of income cannot lead to an inference that the Appellant had furnished inaccurate

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber, Parel vs. Chetan Pravin Chitalia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2101/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)Section 690

erred in deleting the penalty levied, uithout considering the fact that AO has clearly stated his reason for levying the Penalty @ 12.5%, which is on reduced profit percentage of unproven bogus purchases of Rs.1,01,43,657/-, and this view was confirmed by Hon'ble ITAT in the case ... held that case of the assessee squarely falls within the ambit of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 thereto. He, therefore, levied minimum penalty of Rs.3,91,799/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, being

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Chetan Pravin Chitalia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2100/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)Section 690

erred in deleting the penalty levied, uithout considering the fact that AO has clearly stated his reason for levying the Penalty @ 12.5%, which is on reduced profit percentage of unproven bogus purchases of Rs. 1,01,43,657/-, and this view was confirmed by Hon'ble ITAT in the case ... falls within the ambit of furnishing 4 ITA Nos.2100 & 2101/MUM/2025/AYs.2009-10 & 2010-11 Chetan Pravin Chitalia inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 thereto. He, therefore, levied minimum penalty of Rs.3

Bright Enterprises Private Limited Mbd House, Gulab Bhawan Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1) New Delhi, Jao DCIT 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4792/DEL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

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

issues, the first on jurisdiction and second on merits. As regards first issue regarding assumption of the jurisdiction by the AO for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated by the assessment order, where there is no specific charge, i.e. either for concealment of income or for furnishing ... assessee has raised the said issue vide Ground No. 4, which reads as under:- . “4. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeals, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is unjustified, since no specific charge, either for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have been

Naveen Narang, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 29, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3995/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountant Memebr

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

taxmann.com 413 (SC), which is totally out of context and not applicable to the facts of the instant case as it related to levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act where addition on account of undisclosed income arising out of search was made based upon the own admission

Naveen Narang, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 29, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3994/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountant Memebr

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

taxmann.com 413 (SC), which is totally out of context and not applicable to the facts of the instant case as it related to levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act where addition on account of undisclosed income arising out of search was made based upon the own admission

Naveen Narang, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 29, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3993/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountant Memebr

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

taxmann.com 413 (SC), which is totally out of context and not applicable to the facts of the instant case as it related to levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act where addition on account of undisclosed income arising out of search was made based upon the own admission

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeals are allowed

ITA 665/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

submission. However, we find that the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 28/02/2020 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without dealing with the aforesaid submission of the assessee. In further appeal before the Tribunal

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeals are allowed

ITA 664/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

submission. However, we find that the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 28/02/2020 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without dealing with the aforesaid submission of the assessee. In further appeal before the Tribunal

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax

Appeals are allowed

ITA 663/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

submission. However, we find that the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 28/02/2020 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without dealing with the aforesaid submission of the assessee. In further appeal before the Tribunal

Muthuswamy Muruganandham, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvallur

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

ITA 397/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 397/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Muthuswamy Muruganandham, Income Tax Officer, 09-B, Variyar Nagar, Vs. Ward -1, Karthiekeyapuram Road, Tiruvallur. Tiruttani, Tiruvallur – 631 209. [Pan:Aropm-8711-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N.Vijay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. :-2-: ITA. No.:397/Chny/2025 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of penalty for under reporting of income under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.9,07,270-. 4. For that the provisions ... inter-alia confirmed the action of the AO and has held that the AO has correctly applied the provisions of Section 270A and levied a penalty of 50% for under-reported income and further held no further interference was called for. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld.CIT

Moraj Building Concepts Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 302/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

before the Tribunal. On perusal of the grounds raised, we find that the Assessee has challenged the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, inter-alia, on the following grounds: “vi. the penalty was initiated without specifying any charge in the assessment order or penalty notices

Moraj Building Concepts Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 279/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

before the Tribunal. On perusal of the grounds raised, we find that the Assessee has challenged the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, inter-alia, on the following grounds: “vi. the penalty was initiated without specifying any charge in the assessment order or penalty notices

Moraj Building Concepts Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 278/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

before the Tribunal. On perusal of the grounds raised, we find that the Assessee has challenged the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, inter-alia, on the following grounds: “vi. the penalty was initiated without specifying any charge in the assessment order or penalty notices

M/S. Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited (As Sucessor of Edelweiss Capital Markets Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1752/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shir Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S. Edelweiss Rural & Dcit Circle-3(1)(2), Corporate Services Limited R. No. 607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar (As A Success Of Edelweiss Capital Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Markets Limited), Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 14Th Floor, Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 098 Pan: Aacce5207G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

submits that it has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income or concealed any income (as alleged by the learned AO) to justify levy of penalty. The Appellant prays that on the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty is leviable, and the penalty initiated under section 270A

Michael Page International Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation ) -3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1427/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 270A

consequential in nature. Therefore, ground no. 4 needs no separate adjudication. 16. Ground no. 5 raised in assessee's appeal pertains to the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act, which is premature in nature. Accordingly, ground no. 5 raised in assessee's appeal is dismissed

The Nadapuram Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Kozhikode vs. JCIT, Range 2, Kozhikode

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

ITA 957/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274

further contended that the penalty proceedings are barred by limitation, however, the AO brushing aside the above explanation had proceeded with the levy of penalty of Rs.33,67,71,039 vide order dated 14th May, 2019 u/s.271D of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the above order of penalty ... other judgments of High Courts held that in the absence of any reasonable cause for accepting the deposits or loans in cash, the levy of penalty is justified u/s.271D of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of NFAC confirming the levy of penalty, the appellant is in appeal

Able Group Trading Contractors, Mavoor vs. JCIT, Range-2, Kozhikode

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

ITA 818/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Ramkumar Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 68

subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A), which is still pending disposal. Therefore, it is submitted that the present appeal wherein the levy of penalty u/s. 271E of the Act is challenged may also be restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue of levy

Fat East Trading Establishment, Kayamkulam vs. ITO, Ward No.1, Alappuzha

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 817/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sreejith R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44Section 44A

East Trading Establishment one Chartered Accountant, namely Shri Jayakumar Vasudevan Nair, not by Shri Pavithra Kumar. Therefore, he proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action

Jacob Thomas, Kozhencherry vs. ACIT, Thiruvalla Range, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 138/COCH/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [Pan: Ackpt3269L] Vs. Acit, Ward-1 & Tps, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 27.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Business’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 31.12.2020 Declaring Nil. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Ward -1, Thriuvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 28.09.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The 2 Jacob Thomas Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 59,34,921/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made Disallowance Of Interest Expenditure Claimed Of Rs. 89,73,412/- U/S. 57 Of The Act. Accordingly, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued U/S. 274 R.W.S 270A Of The Act. The Appellant Had Failed O Respond To The Above Show Cause Notice. In The Circumstances The Ao Had Proceeded With Levy Penalty Of Rs. 57,24,630/- U/S. 270A By Holding That The Appellant Is Guilty Of Misreporting Income.

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274Section 275(1)Section 57

have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. The AO had levied penalty u/s. 270A 3 Jacob Thomas in respect of additions made in the assessment by disallowing interest claimed ... order dated 27.03.2024 in ITA No. 137/Coch/2024. In this circumstance the penalty proceeding were remitted to the file of the AO to decide levy of penalty in terms of section 275(1)A of the Act. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced