← All Phrases

“penalty proceedings initiated”

PenaltySection 271Section 271556 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty proceedings initiated is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty proceedings initiated

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. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd.
171 Taxmann 156 · 2008 · High Court
384
citing judgments

The assessment order must clearly specify the reason for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and explicitly state whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Failure to identify the specific limb under which penalty is initiated renders the penalty unsustainable.

MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
38 Taxmann.com 448 · 2013 · Supreme Court
186
citing judgments

A voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically exempt an assessee from penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer must satisfy himself about initiating penalty proceedings during the assessment, but is not required to record this satisfaction in a specific written manner.

P.V. Doshi v. CIT
113 ITR 22 · 1978 · High Court
179
citing judgments

The lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be waived and can be challenged at a later stage, even if not raised initially. An invalid reassessment due to such jurisdictional defects cannot sustain subsequent penalty proceedings.

Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT
99 Taxmann.com 152 · 2018 · Supreme Court
121
citing judgments

The Supreme Court, by dismissing the Special Leave Petition, affirmed that a penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to specify the exact limb (furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income) under which the penalty is initiated. This failure to frame a specific charge vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills
379 ITR 521 · 2015 · Supreme Court
110
citing judgments

The assessing officer must record explicit satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under sections like 271D, 271E, 269SS, 269T, or 269ST; a mere recommendation or information to another authority is insufficient to validate the penalty.

CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.
246 ITR 568 · 2000 · High Court
103
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must record clear satisfaction in the assessment order that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Without such recorded satisfaction, the penalty proceedings lack jurisdiction and are unsustainable in law.

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation
305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

Judgments citing penalty proceedings initiated

Sujith Surampudi, Ghatkesar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mancherial

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

ITA 1630/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1630/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Sujith Surampudi Vs. Income Tax Officer Ghatkesar Ward 1 Pan:Cwcps7355A Mancherial (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Swathi Sheela राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sujith Surampudi (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.09.2025 For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order U/S250 Of The Act Dt. 15-09-2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: C.A Swathi SheelaFor Respondent: : Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 144rSection 250Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)

dated 28.08.2023 and 07.02.2024 during the course of the assessment proceedings. It is also not in dispute that even during the penalty proceedings initiated under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, the assessee did not respond to or comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Accordingly

Dharm Raj Kushwaha, Unnao vs. Income Tax Officer -2(4), Unnao

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

ITA 494/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharm Raj Kushwaha V. The Income Tax Officer 2(4) 172, Saipur Sarauda Unnao Safpur Unnao (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bmepk6477L (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Business Correspondent Of State Bank Of India & Ran A Customer Service Point (Csp). The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Withdrawals Of Rs.1,36,10,616/- From The Current Account Maintained With The State Bank Of India, Received An Amount Of Rs.11,550/- As ‘Commission/Brokerage’ & ‘Insurance Commission’ During The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194H

escaped in the assessment year 2018-19. 7. Because on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty proceedings initiated under section 270A and 272 A (1) (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Because on facts and in law, the appellate order