← 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

Ketan Arvindbhai Patel, Sojitra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Anand

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

ITA 269/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kedar Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 144Section 250

assessee was asked to submit details and evidences to substantiate agricultural income, but the assessee did not reply to the aforesaid notices. Show cause notice for penalty u/s 271(1)(b) read with Section 274 dated 13.10.2018 was issued by the AO to the assessee , but the assessee

Anjali Saini, Zirakpur vs. ITO-Ward-5(5), Chandigarh

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 620/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

have never been issued. The copy of the said circular dated 14.08.2019 has been perused by us from the paper book including show cause notice for penalty u/s 271(1)(b). 10. That it is contended the notice for initiation of penalty dated 271(1)(b) dated 15.11.2019 is invalid

Yudo Hot Runners India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi Present Juridiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

Assessment Order, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated separately for concealing the particulars of income. Show cause notice for penalty proceedings on the issue of delay in depositing of Employees’ Provident Fund and ESIC was issued on 13.08.2021. In the meanwhile

The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Smt. Kanchan Kiran Sorathiya, Anjar-Kutch

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 39/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 159(2)(b)Section 159(3)Section 292BSection 69B

Even after assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not recognised the Legal Heir in letter of recovery of demand as well as show cause notice for penalty. The Assessing Officer has recognised Legal Heir only after CIT(A) has given order against the Revenue. The Ld. AR further submitted that

Kanchan India Limited, Bhilwara vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

assessee as to why ex- parte assessment may not be proceeded as per provision of section 144 of the Act and a show cause notice for penalty u/s 271(1)(b) were issued. In compliance to the same, Shri Durgesh Banger, one of the Director of the company submitted reply

Sudheer Chamarthi, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 216/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.216/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Sudheer Chamarthi Vs. Income Tax Officer 12-17-36/1, Somuvari Street Ward-1(1) Kothapet Guntur Guntur [Pan : Axnpc8454A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021- 22/1041354665(1) Dated 23.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2017-18 With The Delay Of 163 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Was Uploaded In E-Filing Portal & It Was Not Served Physically. The Assessee Submitted That All His Income Tax Matters Were Entrusted To A Chartered Accountant, Who Did

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

have viewed the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee further submitted that the appellate order came to his knowledge when a show cause notice for penalty under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) dated 14.10.2022 was issued with a note appended

M/S. Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 746/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Ketan Ved/Ms. Urvi Mehta/For Respondent: Aditya M Rai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 234BSection 270A

even date. Issue that arises is Whether draft assessment order accompanied with [1] Notice of Demand, [2] tax Computation sheet and [3] Show Cause Notice for penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) of the act, can it be considered as draft assessment order or a final assessment order

Lord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 424/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

For Appellant: M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Dr. Samual Pitta
Section 40

failed to follow procedure prescribed for passing a draft assessment order and passing of order accompanied with demand notice and show cause notice of penalty is void-ab-initio and deserves to be quash. The ld. Counsel has referred P a g e | 8 Lord India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT ... assessment order passed on 21 December 2016 is accompanied with a notice of demand u/s 156 of the act and also a show cause notice of penalty u/s 274 read with Section 271 (1) (C) of the act along with the draft assessment order and therefore the procedure of passing

Vkm Logistics P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-26(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7457/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7457/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Vkm Logistics P. Ltd., Ito 611, Pragati Tower, Vs. Ward 26(4) Rajinder Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aakcs4517M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

assessee has not made the compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Later on, show cause notice for penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 was issued on 27.10.2017 whereby the case was asked to stated why the penalty

Shrimati Sakshi Sabharwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/ASR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Girish Bali, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 69B

wealth. 2. Assessed as above. Charge interest u/s 17B of the Act. Give credit of prepaid taxes. Issue demand notice and show cause notice for penalty.” 8 Sakshi Sabharwal v. ACIT 9. In the above view of the matter, we hold that grievance of the appellant is found

Aman Goyal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Balram Swami, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263wSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

said assessment u/s 143(3)/263 had been completed by assessing loss ofRs. 9,40,770/-. 4. The Appellant has received Show cause notice for penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from National E assessment Centre – Delhi on 11.03.2021. The Appellant has submittedsuitable reply

ITO 26(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Vivaan Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside whole issue back to the file of the ld

ITA 1063/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Vivaan Corporation The Income Tax Officer 505, 5Th Floor, Ward 26(3)(4) Ackruti Star, Room No.336, Income Tax Opp Ackruti Centre Point, Office, 34D Floor, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Midc, Bandra East, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 051 Andheri-400 093 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalfv4392H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sunil A Umap, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A Umap, DR
Section 143

have been received from 62 parties as stipulated at page number 3 – 5 of the assessment order. The assessee was issued a show cause notice for penalty for non-furnishing of the detail. The assessee replied on 15/12/2017 submitting the Ledger account of 2 parties (1) Medichem Lifesciences private limited

Aker Powergas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 7211/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Aker Powergas P. Ltd. Income–Tax, Circle–15(1)(1), Powergas House, 83 I Think Room No.470, Aayakar Techno Campus Kanjur Marg Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Rd, (E), Mumbai–400 042 Mumbai–400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd1981E Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ms. Shraddha Jain, Ars Revenue By : Shri Vivek A Perampurna, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.0222

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A Perampurna, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14CSection 156Section 244ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

assessment order passed on 21 December 2016 is accompanied with a notice of demand u/s 156 of the act and also a show cause notice of penalty u/s 274 read with Section 271 (1) (C) of the act along with the draft assessment order and therefore the procedure of passing ... prescribed for passing a draft assessment order but instead of that passed draft assessment order along with the notice of demand and show cause notice for penalty. 018. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that it is merely an irregularity and not an invalidity of the assessment order. He further

Adinath Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2690/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Adinath Properties Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, B-1/12, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Circle-1(1), New Delhi – 110 057. Gurgaon Pan: Aagca2030B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not mentioned. 3. The assessee did not dispute the above addition before the higher forum. The show cause notice for penalty was replied to by the assessee on 15.06.2017. The assessee submitted that it has incurred establishment expenses

Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi

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

ITA 2878/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(B)Section 37(1)

Notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 22/6/2015. As notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) was not responded, show cause notice for penalty u/ 271(1)(B) was issued on 3/9/2015 to which no reply was received from the assessee. Subsequently, penalty