“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

Lohith Kumar, Udupi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

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

ITA 2350/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Manish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Kamble, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)(c)

with respect to the penalty proceedings before the AO. When the Bench asked the counsel as to how assessee was aware of the levy of penalty, then he submitted that assessee came to know about the levy of penalty when the recovery proceedings were initiated against the assessee. The main

Lohith Kumar, Udupi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 2349/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Manish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Kamble, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)(c)

Here Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5919/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92D

Development Services”. Ground No.3 raised in assessee's appeal is decided accordingly. 39. Ground No. 4 raised in assessee's appeal pertains to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) r.w. Section 274 of the Act, which is premature in nature. Therefore, the same is dismissed. 40. The application

Kalpeshkumar Jayantilal Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. Nos.74-75/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kalpeshkumar Jayantilal Patel, Vs. The Income Tax E-13, Ramkrishna Market, Officer, Mal Godown, Ward-1, Mehsana-384002. Mehsana. [Pan No.Alhpp9324N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Kshatriya, Ar Respondent By: Adjournment Application Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Adjournment Application

Section 271ASection 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Appeal Centre vide order dated 21.11.2024 passed for the Assessment Year 2017-18, involving quantum appeal and levy of penalty. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- (1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Order

Kalpeshkumar Jayantilal Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 74/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Adjournment Application

Section 271ASection 69A

Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1192/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 153CSection 250

defeat the very purpose of Search/Survey operations as they fail to bring the undisclosed income to tax in a sustainable manner leave alone levy of penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Jaipur vs. Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1149/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 153CSection 250

Bhavan Ravat, Raebareli vs. Assessing Authority NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhavan Ravat Assessing Authority V. Vill. Rampur Sudauli, Nfac Raebareli-229301. Delhi Pan:Ajwpr1755Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 270Section 270ASection 5

additions have been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal. We, therefore, hereby set aside the impugned order levying the penalty with a liberty to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue regarding levy of penalty afresh, after framing denovo assessment order

Parth Bus Services Private Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(3), Vadodara, Gujarat

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

ITA 1925/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi V. Pandya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 40A(3)Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s.271AAC of the Act when no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is wrongly initiated ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act when no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is wrongly initiated

Nihal Industries Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1488/AHD/2024[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1488/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nihal Industries Private The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Limited Ward-3(1)(1) V/S. 1961, Above Royal Cycle Ahmedabad Inside Panchkuwa Panchkuwa Ahmedabad – 380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcn 7129 D (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arjav D. Vidani, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.06.2024, Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.30,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. Nihal Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arjav D. Vidani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Nihal Industries Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 7.2. However, while the failure to respond to statutory notices warrants the levy of penalty, the imposition of separate penalties for each instance of default is not justified. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Rekha Rani

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudur vs. Sireesha Pochareddy, Chinthavaram

In the result, appeal of the Revenue ITA

ITA 1270/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Income Tax PractitionerFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr AR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)(c)

Court in the case of PCIT vs., Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd., reported in [2020] 119 taxmann.com 285 (SC) on the issue of levy of penalty u/sec.271D of the Act and the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision vs., Addl. CIT, Range

M/S G M Builders, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Mumbai), Old-ACIT Circle-22(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Share Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

firm to not hold back the return of income, the assessee submitted that there was bona fide explanation, which does not justify levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 9. The learned PCIT, vide impugned order, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that ... issues vide its notice dated 04/03/2024 issued under section 263 of the Act, however, all of them were dropped except the issue of levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that the case of the assessee falls within the bona fide explanation under

Shanvaj Hussin, Khargone vs. ITO, Khargone

ITA 504/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shanvaj Hussain, Income Tax Officer, 5, New Sabji Mandi, Khargone बनाम/ Khargone Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afkph8029P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2025

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246Section 250Section 253Section 271BSection 44A

books of accounts audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the Act and henceforth, there was no justification for levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act 4. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken

Income Tax Officer, Indore vs. Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Tillor Khurad, Indore

ITA 327/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 269TSection 271E

Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit ITA No. 327/Ind/2024 - AY 2015-16 reasonable explanation and no plausible reason is mentioned therein hence levy of penalty of Rs.1,03,15,781/- is justifiable u/s 271E of the Act by Ld. A.O vide order dated 21.10.2019. The Ld. DR has contended that

Ms Imsofer Manufacturing India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)– Pune and National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Pune and NFAC (Delhi)

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

ITA 1316/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule &

Section 154Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(A)

case and in law, the learned CTT(A) erred in violating the provisions of section 251 (1)(b) of the Act. Non-levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c); 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has heard the quantum ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that there is absence of essential element for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the Appellant's case viz. ‘concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars

M/S Sharp Business Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1940/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234E

penalty levied for the quarter for this quarter also deserves to be deleted. On merits, it is submitted that the provisions for levy of penalty u/s 234E was inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and the quarter under appeal is much prior to that thus the said provisions are 2 IT No.1940/Del/2025 Paschion

Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 140/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 1ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

failed to appreciate that all the conditions as laid down under sub-section 1A were not met, thus, rendering the levy of penalty null and void. ITA No. 139 and 140/Ran/2023 Gajanan Ferro P Ltd. Vs DCIT 3. That the assessee craves lave to add, alter or amend any ground ... Karnataka High Court in CIT & Anr. vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) wherein the court had enshrined that levy of penalty is altogether different from assessment procedures. The penalty cannot be levied in a routine manner. The principles of natural justice must be followed wherein the notice

Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 139/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 1ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Alliance Dealers Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 89/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Karnataka High Court in CIT & Anr. vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) wherein the court had enshrined that levy of penalty is altogether different from assessment procedures. The penalty cannot be levied in a routine manner. The principles of natural justice must be followed wherein the notice ... served on the assessee must clearly and unambiguously specify the charge on which the Department proposes to levy the penalty so that the assessee can be ready with his defence and prepare his case and submissions accordingly. 7. In view thereof, even without going into the merits of the extant

Sh. Jogesh Chander Gupta, Phagwara vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Phagwara

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 13/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 13/Asr/2015 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sh Jogesh Chander Gupta, बनाम The Addl. Cit, Prop.Sampoorna Feeds, Phagwara Range, G.T. Road, Phagwara Opp.Mauli Gate, Phagwara 144632 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Aappg4599K अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Vijh, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Davinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :10.03.2025 2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2014 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar For A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Only Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Davinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271

reported at 108 ITR 861 stating that not only did the Punjab & Haryana High Court uphold the addition but also confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) [1st para at page no. 6 of 143(3)]. It is submitted that unless the household expenses are ridiculously