← All Phrases

“show cause notice for penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 27135 judgments

The decision most relied on for show cause notice for penalty is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on show cause notice for penalty

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.

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.

Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai
84 Taxmann.com 51 · 2017 · ITAT
263
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be deleted merely due to technical defects in the penalty notice, such as not ticking the specific default, if the assessee understood the charges.

CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd.
149 ITR 751 · 1984 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Minor defects or mistakes in a penalty notice issued under Section 274 do not invalidate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) if the assessee suffers no prejudice and is aware of the charge. However, significant vagueness or ambiguity that demonstrates non-application of mind or causes prejudice can still render the notice invalid.

PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
432 ITR 84 · 2021 · High Court
185
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's failure to specify the exact limb (i.e., concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) vitiates the entire penalty proceedings.

Babuji Jacob v. ITO
430 ITR 259 · 2021 · High Court
74
citing judgments

A penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is vitiated if the show cause notice issued under Section 274 fails to specify the exact charge against the assessee by not striking out the inapplicable portions, thereby denying clear communication of the specific default (concealment or inaccurate particulars). The entire penalty proceedings, including the penalty order, are rendered invalid in such a scenario.

Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
379 ITR 100 · 2015 · High Court
42
citing judgments

The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not a prerequisite for the initiation of penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax are valid. The date of the show cause notice by the penalty imposing authority is relevant for computing limitation for imposing penalty under Section 271DA.

ACIT v. Dipak Kantilal Takvani
39 Taxmann.com 53 · 2013 · Reported
41
citing judgments

Penalty orders under sections 271D and 271E, which are unconnected to the assessee's income, are to be considered under clause (c) of section 275(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Judgments citing show cause notice for penalty

Sumanto Paul, Delhi vs. The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 8755/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2016-17 Sumanto Paul, Vs The Assessing Officer, 139, Kohat Enclave, Assessment Unit, Pitampur, Income Tax Department, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan: Aajpp4082C

For Appellant: Ms Shruti Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

observations of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel submitted before us that the show cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.01.2024 for the year under consideration though issued, no notice has been issued alleging either concealment

Chaitanya Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1098/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1098/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Chaitanya Agarwal, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-7(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. Pin 500 012 Pin – 500 084. Telangana. Pan Artpc2750K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri Akshay Surana, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

Section 144Section 270ASection 68

staff of the assessee and therefore, the assessee could not pay the attention to the matter and only when a show cause notice for penalty proceedings u/sec.270A Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 dated 16.06.2025 was received by the assessee, he has realized that the appeal against

District Cooperative Bank Limited, Shahjahanpur vs. Addl/Jdit (I & Ci), Lucknow

In the result, both appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 79/LKW/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022
For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 271FSection 285

before the appointed date nor responded to the said notices. It was only when the assessee was issued a show cause notice for penalty under section 271FAA, that it made the rectification. The ld. CIT(A) held that income tax proceedings were time bound proceedings and therefore, uploading of information

District Cooperative Bank Limited, Shahjahanpur, Bshahjahanpur vs. Addl / Jdit (I & Ci), Lucknow

In the result, both appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 78/LKW/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 271FSection 285

before the appointed date nor responded to the said notices. It was only when the assessee was issued a show cause notice for penalty under section 271FAA, that it made the rectification. The ld. CIT(A) held that income tax proceedings were time bound proceedings and therefore, uploading of information

ACIT-Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Incredible India Projects Private Limited, Secunderabad

ITA 605/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.605/Hyd/2022

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 270Section 271ASection 274

1 ITA.No.605/Hyd./2022 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad [THROUGH

Mahratta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 347/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 12Section 143(2)Section 144Section 25Section 270A

Bench a copy of screenshots from the Income Tax portal and email received from the Department on 17.05.2023 containing intimation of show cause notice for penalty u/s 270A asking the assessee to make submissions in support of its claim (pages 7 to 9 of the paper book refers

Sunita Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 97/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. That the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, nor due to any negligence or laxity on my part, but due to bona fide reasons beyond my control: 8. That I submit that substantial justice should not be denied merely due to procedural delay and that the appeal may be decided on merits. 9. That I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay and allow my

For Appellant: Shri Aryan Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 5Section 69A

Administrative Tribunal, Patna. It is mentioned that the notices issued by the Ld. AO were not complied with but when a show cause notice for penalty was received, the assessee submitted the reply along with certain documents. It was stated that the assessee had not received any previous notice

Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Faceless Assessment Unit

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 408/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Ito, New Delhi, 283, Padm Punj, Siddhanth Bharuch-392001. Nagar Soceity, Gujarat Housing Vs. Board, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aebpp 3770 P Appellant Respondent : None For Assessee Assessee By : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 06/10/2025 Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None for
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

alleged concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. 3.1. The record reveals that in response to the show cause notice for penalty, the assessee merely sought that the proceedings be kept in abeyance and, at a later stage, contended in general terms that the addition itself

Rajyeshwar Retail Trade Systems Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

ITA 33/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 253Section 272A(1)(d)

must failing which the assessee would be liable to a penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. A show cause notice for penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 29.12.2020 was issued to the assessee requiring him to show cause on or before

M/S Karia Builders, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 2401/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Karia Builders Ito, Ward 14(3), Pune 402, Konark Indrayu, Kondhwa, Vs. Pune – 411048 Pan: Aadfk5220B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)Section 296S

which reads as under: 9 19. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated on 17.08.2022. We find the JCIT in the show cause notice for penalty u/s 271D of the Act issued on 13.02.2023 has also mentioned the time barring date i.e. 28.02.2023 for levy of penalty. The Annexure

Shri Becharbhai Dharamshibhai Vasoya, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 125/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

online proceedings was not complied. 5. That, my representative became aware of the order under section 250 of CIT(A) when the show cause notice for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) dated 07.01.2025 received from the Assessing Officer. 6. That due to above reasons, there is delay in filing

T.V. Today Network Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.T. V. Today Network Ltd, Vs. Acit, F-26, First Floor, Connaught Circle-25(1), Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabct0424B

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

factually distinguishable as the assessee had indeed raised this objection before the Learned AO itself while giving preliminary reply to the show cause notice for penalty issued to the assessee. The evidence to this effect is enclosed in Page 20 of the Paper Book containing reply filed by the assessee

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

passed within six months from completion of assessment proceedings. In the instant case, the assessment order was passed on 28.07.2017, whereas the show cause notice for penalty u/s 271E was issued on 23.07.2018. This itself was beyond 6 months from the end of the month of passing assessment order. Further

Satwinder Kaur, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 301/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

submitted that the above noted assessee is in the receipt of notice по. 1034109492(1) dated 09.07.2021 in regard to show cause notice for penalty u/s 271 (1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, it is submitted that the above noted assessee has filed an appeal

Amol Prataprao Chavan, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward 2, Sangli

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

ITA 1679/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1679/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amol Prataprao Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Patil Chowk, Daphalapur Jath, S Ward-2, Sangli. Sangli – 416402. Pan: Amypc0887B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2017-18 Dated 28.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) Ground No.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Ao Erred In Making Addition To Total Income Of Rs.16,54,000/- U/S 68 Without Considering Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 1.1) The Assessee Amol Prataprao Chavan Is An Individual Was Engaged In The Business As " Business Correspondent Agent " He Was Appointed To Facilitate Bank Customers On Behalf Of Bank. He Was Authorised To Accept Cash On Behalf Of Bank As Well As He Was Also Authorised To Give Withdrawals To Customers Of Bank. For Doing This Activity Bank Has Allotted Him Separate Bank Account. His Bank Account Having Account No. 60255628482 Of Bank Of Maharashtra Was That Special Purpose Bank Account . Learned Ao Considered Entire Deposit Of Rs. 16,54,000/- In That Bank Account As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 .

Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 68

Total Income Rs. 18,89,650/- Assessed u/s.144 of I.T.Act, 1961. Charge interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C & 234D as applicable. Issue show cause notice for penalty u/s.271AAC. Issue demand notice after due verification of prepaid taxes.” 4.2 Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT

Yogita Chandrakant Ghuse, Hinganghat vs. ITO Ward-2, Wardha

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

ITA 77/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Srishti PandeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

appeal proceedings were sent online and no physical delivery of notices were received. ii. When the Deponent received physical copy of show cause notice for Penalty Proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 02/02/2024, I came to know that appellate order had being passed against myself

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Alwar vs. Man Mohan Krishna, Alwar

18. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed

ITA 503/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh , (Addl.CIT)
Section 250Section 270ASection 40

stated to have been served by the Assessing Officer before levy of penalty. Its perusal would reveal that this is a show cause notice for penalty, whereby the assessee was called upon to explain as to why an order imposing penalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be passed

Jamna Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 540/JPR/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.5,30,000/- and interest on savings bank account of Rs.9,660/- has been confirmed by CIT(A). The AO issued show cause notice for penalty proceedings on 05/10.2015. Appellant submitted it's response before the AO. However, AO not found this response tenable and levied penalty of Rs.1

Aathur Karthick, Coimbatore vs. The ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Coimbatore

ITA 376/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Smt. M.S. Deeptha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

days stating the following reason:- “2. It is submitted that the appellant was made aware of this conundrum only when a reminder show cause notice for penalty U/s.271(1)(c) was served on 18.01.2024 by the National Faceless Penalty Centre. Only then the appellant was notified about the appellate order

Sandeep Ramesh Keni, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1080/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14 Sandeep Ramesh Keni The Commissioner Of B-Wing, Room No. 24, Income Tax Panvel Plaza, Government Of India Behind S. K. Bajaj Vs. Ministry Of Finance, Showroom, Income Tax Department, Panvel, National Faceless Appeal Raigad-410206. Centre, Pan: Avapk7931R Delhi- 110011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Mayank Bagla, Adv. A/W Shri. Hiten Lala, Adv. : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, D.R. Revenue By : 24 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Hearing : 25 . 07 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Bagla, Adv. a/w Shri. Hiten LalaFor Respondent: 24 . 06 . 2024
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 44

income tax act, 1961 and net taxable income was below the taxable limit. 16. The Appellant had received an email regarding the show cause notice for penalty proceedings under section 271 of the income tax act, 1961, The Appellant found out the same on the portal, and realized that ... That the assessee vide its letter dated 09/02/2022 had declared before the CIT (Thane) that he had received an email regarding the show cause notice for penalty proceedings u/s. 271 of the Income Tax Act and that assessment proceeding for the assessment year 2013-14 was pending