← 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

S.N. Exports, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2358/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92BSection 92DSection 92D(1)

genuine and conclusive. Hence, mere non furnishing of information and documents in the manner sought by the ld AO cannot lead to automatic levy of penalty u/s 271G of the Act. There is absolutely no loss to the exchequer in non furnishing of the information or documents in the manner ... Further, we find when there is no transfer pricing (TP) adjustment made in respect of a particular transaction, there cannot be any levy of penalty u/s 271G of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case

Shri Bhaktinagar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ITO 3 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee (ITA No

ITA 200/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.200/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Bhakti Nagar Co Operative Housing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Society Ltd. (Bhaktinagar Circle, Meghani Rang Bhavan, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot) Rong Road, A D Vyas & Co, Charted Accounts, Kotecha Rajkot - 360001 Nagar Main Road, Opp Kotecha Girl’S School, Off Kalawad Road. Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2363M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriGautam Acharya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)

till date. (ii) In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for levy of penalty. Considering the full facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby levy minimum penalty @100% of the tax sought to be evaded, which works ... sought to be evaded, which works out to be at Rs. 2432046/-. Taking into account the facts of the case, I hereby levy a penalty of Rs. 810682/-being minimum penalty @100% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income

Sunrise Realconsultancy Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

ITA 1308/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 271(1)(b)Section 69

under Section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 22.02.2022 in quantum proceeding and in the matter of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) dated 18.08.2022. 2. In ITA No. 1307/JP/2024, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal; 1. In the facts

Sunrise Realconsultancy Private Limited, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1307/JPR/2024[2013-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2013-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 271(1)(b)Section 69

short 'the Act') dated 22.02.2022 in quantum Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO proceeding and in the matter of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) dated 18.08.2022. 2. In ITA No. 1307/JP/2024, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal; 1. In the facts and circumstances ... therefore, ld. DR relied upon the lower authorities. The issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1308/JP/2024 is related to the levy of penalty on the amount added in the quantum proceeding. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground

Shailendrakumar Mansingrao Bhoite, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1581/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30.06.2024 passed for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At the outset, we observe that ... During the course of hearing the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the assessee on account of certain additions amounting to Rs. 33,45,099/- which were added in the hands

Sachin Baban Shinde, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhananjay Vijay SalunkheFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 147Section 148Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)

Rs.1,46,760/- on the ground that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of 2 misreporting without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee ... form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assessee and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assessee was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned

Yogesh Shivaji Shinde, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Yogesh Shivaji Shinde, Vs. Ito, National Faceless H. No.377, Mhb Colony, Assessment Centre, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Delhi. Pan : Aekps3129Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Pagare (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs. 56,350/- On The Ground That The Assessee Had Under Reported & Mis Reported His Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Pagare (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

ground that the assessee had under reported and mis reported his income. In consequence of misreporting without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee ... form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assessee and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without rebutting the explanation offered by the assessee was not justified in view of provisions of the said

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. Zeal Education Society, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1642/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Puranikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

appellate order. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, deleted the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO observing that for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act, assessed income should be greater than the processed income u/s 143(1)(a), however, in the present case ... assessment order u/s.143(3) by assessing taxable income also at Rs. Nil". The submission of the appellant with respect to levy of penalty as per sub-section 2 of section 270A is reproduced hereunder: "270A. (2) A person shall be considered to have under- reported his income, if- 4 ITA.No

Kanchan Santoshlumar Srivastav, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2536/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 270A

direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The assessee in this appeal has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 270A by the Assessing Officer on account of under-reporting of income. 10. Since the quantum appeal has been restored to the file ... Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, therefore, the issue relating to levy of penalty u/s 270A is also restored to his file for fresh adjudication. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Kanchan Santoshlumar Srivastav, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2533/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 270A

direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The assessee in this appeal has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 270A by the Assessing Officer on account of under-reporting of income. 10. Since the quantum appeal has been restored to the file ... Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, therefore, the issue relating to levy of penalty u/s 270A is also restored to his file for fresh adjudication. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

M/S. Amritlaxmi Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 31/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 5. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee adjudicating against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Admittedly, the basis of the penalty in this appeal is the quantum additions which have been contested ... clear that if in the set aside proceeding the Ld. CIT(A) would be of the view that it is a case of levy of penalty, the Ld. Assessing Officer will be at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

M/S. Amritlaxmi Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 30/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 5. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee adjudicating against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Admittedly, the basis of the penalty in this appeal is the quantum additions which have been contested ... clear that if in the set aside proceeding the Ld. CIT(A) would be of the view that it is a case of levy of penalty, the Ld. Assessing Officer will be at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Monish Ranjan Dasgupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2447/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the direction of CIT(A)-NFAC to restrict the levy of penalty to 100% of tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs. 8,00,190 is wrong, erroneous, arbitrary, misconceived, excessive and deserves ... that there is no allegation against the assessee either of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the show cause notice issued for levy of penalty and as no deduction had been claimed, no penalty could have been imposed. 7. In order to understand the issue, it is imperative

Ritu Verma, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

ITA 377/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu JambaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. CIT (A)'] has grossly erred in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly

Amish Anantrai Modi, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 4172/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: him.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

order impugned. However, the same have not been dealt with while deciding the appeal. The CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing that despite having been granted ample opportunity during the penalty proceedings the Assessee had not filed

Balvir Mohan Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

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

ITA 8/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 5.0 In result, the appeal of the appellant is Dismissed.” 5. Further, Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the assessee. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us, against the order passed ... confirming the quantum additons as well as levy of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section271(1)(c). 7. Before us, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay, since the present appeals are time barred and submitted that the reason for non- appearance by the assessee before

Balvir Mohan Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

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

ITA 7/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 5.0 In result, the appeal of the appellant is Dismissed.” 5. Further, Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the assessee. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us, against the order passed ... confirming the quantum additons as well as levy of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section271(1)(c). 7. Before us, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay, since the present appeals are time barred and submitted that the reason for non- appearance by the assessee before

Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 951/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.951/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Vs. The Assessment Unit, D-74, Vithalnagar Society, Hirabaug, Income-Tax Department, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 Jurisdictional Ao: The Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alopg2048R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

estimation basis. Hence, there is not case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO did not accept such explanation and proceeded to levy the penalty because the CIT(A) had partly confirmed the addition made by the AO. He levied minimum penalty of Rs.21 ... upon the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR. Though the revenue has raised three grounds of appeal, the only effective ground is levy of penalty of Rs.21,757/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessment order was passed on 17.11.2016 u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Godfrey Lloyd Vaz, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5304/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pranab Mitra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj
Section 250Section 270A

bring any new material on record to substantiate the carry forward of loss under the head "Income from House Property". Accordingly, the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 6,07,848/- being 200% of tax on the income allegedly misrepresented by the assessee. 4. There is a delay ... details before the AO during the course of hearing and therefore, no wilful non-compliance on the part of the assessee warranting levy of penalty. 6. The ld. DR on the other hand vehemently argued that the assessee has offered the nominal rental income in order to claim the deduction

Pradeep Garg, Ajmer vs. ITO 2(1) Ajmer, Ajmer

ITA 397/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 64(1)(iv)

assessee-appellant challenging the finding so recorded by the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A)] dated 30/01/2024 confirming the levy of penalty for the assessment year 2010-11. The said order of the Id. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty ... total Income of the assessee on a/c of boundary wall expenses. 4. Aggrieved from that order of the Id. AO levying the penalty the assessee preferred an appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the Id. CIT(A) is reiterated here