“Section 271(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)5,698 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)

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.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court

1,183

citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court

953

citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

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. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court

694

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court

672

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)

Mrs. Neeta Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2186/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 148Section 251(1)

Rs.53,82,812/- and change of LTCG to STCG within the meaning of explanation-1 to the sub-section (1) of the section 271(1)(c) are initiated. Notice u/s. 271(1)(c) read with section 274 is being issued separately.” 7. It is thus clear that once the assessee

Mrs. Neeta Gupta, New Delhi vs. CIT (Appeals)-Xxvi, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 5461/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 148Section 251(1)

M/S. Rukmani Engineering Works, (Now Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Odisha vs. The Dy. CIT- Circle- Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee firm being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 81/RPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Rukmani Engineering Works (Now Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Mig-384, Svbp Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) Pan: Aaifr4667G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 251Section 40

allowable in nature while computing the business income. In absence of any explanation from the assessee the provision of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) is applicable, which lays down that the assessee is guilty of concealment of particular of income in such circumstances and it is deemed concealment ... Others reported in (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that in absence of any' explanation from the assessee, provision of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) is applicable. Regarding addition out of denial of remuneration and interest paid to the partners, I find that the addition was,. made

Kantilal Dayalbhai Rambhai, Surat vs. ITO(Int. Tax), Surat

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

ITA 928/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.928/Srt/2024

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 45

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Dhoop Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Jaipur

ITA 1241/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us Today, Under Signatures Of The Appellant- Applicant Seeking Condonation Of Delay Of 123 Days. Affidavit Of The Applicant In Support Of The Application Has Already Been Filed On 15.01.2025.

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice that the assessee was required to explain concealment of particulars of his income. In other words, this specific limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act was to be brought to the notice of the assessee, so as to enable him to explain the same. Ld. DR submits

Tej Singh Sinsinwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Himachal Fashion Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 740/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

determined at Rs.75,17,116/-. It appeared that penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and ultimately a penalty order was passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 26.03.2019. The demand notice was served upon assessee on 27.03.2019. Dis- satisfied with this order, assessee has filed

Shri Narinder Singh, Ropar vs. ITO, W-2(2), Ropar

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1475/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Chandigarh dt. 06/08/2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11 wherein the assessee has challenged the sustenance of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,56,500/-. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section

Suchitra Shashikant Khavare, Hatkanangle, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1427/PUN/2024[AY 13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1427/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Suchitra Shashikant Khavare, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post Shiroli Pulachi, S Ichalkaranji. Hatkanangle, Kolhapur – 416122. Pan: Aowpk8959A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Dated 17.05.2024 For A.Y.2013-14 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In, Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Thereby Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(B). The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter, Modify, Delete Or Add A New Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. Ld.Authorised Representative(Ld.Ar) For The Assessee Submitted That Assessee Had Discontinued Her Business Of Country Liquor In Earlier Years. Assessee Is Not Well-Versed With The Technology. The Assessee’S Erstwhile Tax Practitioner Had Mentioned His Email Address & Mobile Number In The Login Portal. Therefore, All The Notices Had Been To That Email Address, Therefore, Assessee Was Not Aware About The Notices Issued. Therefore, Assessee Could Not Comply The Notices. Hence, Ld.Ar Pleaded That Penalty May Be Dropped.

Section 142(1)Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], dated 17.05.2024 for A.Y.2013-14 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; emanating from penalty order under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case

Dakshin Damodar Rice Mill Private Limited, Bankura More, Muchkhanda vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 901/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Cir-1, Dakshin Damodar Rice Mill Aaykar Bhavan, Court Private Limited. Bankura More Muchkhada, Compound, Burdwan-713101, Vs. Burdwan-713103, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd1784A Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranbesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR

Section 14(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

mentioning wrong financial year as 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13. Same mistake occurred in notice initiating penalty proceeding u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the demand notice. Thereafter, the ld. AO brought a corrigendum wherein it has been stated that in the assessment ... instead of previous year ‘2007-08’. In the notice of demand and in the notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) both dated 18.03.2015 the assessment year was inadvertently written as ‘2012-13’ instead of assessment year ‘2008’09. In all the above mentioned order and notices

Kamal H. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 18(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 5542/Mum/2023 is allowed

ITA 5542/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarshri Kamal H Shah Vs Cit A Nfac / Ito-18(2)(1) Gopal Niwas, Room No.14, 5Th Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Floor, 133, Princess Street, Mumbai-40 0 012 Mumbai-400 002 Pan : Aahps2365M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

order 2 Kamal H Shah of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 18(2)(1), Mumbai (in brevity, ‘the AO’), passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 27/03/2018. 2. The appeal of the assessee was filed with a delay of 481 days. The assessee filed ... delay fo 481 days and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The appeal of the assessee was filed against the order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty imposed amount to Rs.3,98,700/-. The assessment was completed and addition was made related to the bogus

Kaleem M. Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(2), Navi Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA 3484/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2010-11 Mr. Kaleem M. Khan Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-701, Ghanashyam Bhawan, Ward-22(3)(2), Mumbai. Plot No. 10, Sector – 3, (Respondent) Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai 400 701. Pan : Apspk7646H (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande

Section 271(1)(c)

BHADANG, PRESIDENT : By this appeal, the assessee is challenging the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below, confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) purportedly on the ground, that the appellant-assessee has furnished ‘inaccurate particulars of income

Sunil Kumar, Gandhidham vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Gandhidham

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

ITA 293/RJT/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

made to the income of the appellant as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. 4. During the assessment proceedings before the Ld. AO it was found from the information received on insight portal that

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Kamrudinbhai R. Makhani, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 154Section 271(1)(C)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM Beat

Omprakash, Dholpur vs. ITO Ward 4 Bharatpur, Bharatpur

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

ITA 1255/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rahual Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT-DR)

Section 147Section 148oSection 2(14)Section 271(1)(C)Section 45

received by the Humble Appellant . That the Humble Appellant has come to know about the assessment when penalty notices 274 read with Section 271 (1) (c) dated 09/09/2021 issued by Ld Income tax officer Bharatpur. That the Humble Appellant after receipts of notices, requested to Ld. Income tax officer Bharatpur ... Demand of Rs.5,69,169/- & Oblige. 4. That the learned Assessing Authority, grossly erred in law and facts in initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the act. – Penalty Appeal. That the Penalty is connected with Quantum & related to Ground of Appeal No 1 to 3, since the Humble

Sunil Garg, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1214/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, Vs Dcit/Acit, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. Pan-Acapa1883B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

there was sufficient material on record to show that cash sales were fabricated, Tribunal could not have deleted additions and penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on mere ground that sales tax authorities had accepted books of account and VAT was paid on such cash sales." Also

Jatinder Nath, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Ludhiana

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 729/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 5Section 68

Income Tax Act whereas ITA No.729/CHD/2024 ITA No.728&729/CHD/2024 A.Y.2011-12 2 emanates from a penalty order dated 20.06.2019 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. First Appellate Authority has decided quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal by way of separate orders on 30.04.2024. First

Jatinder Nath, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Ludhiana, Rishi Nagar

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 728/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 5Section 68

Abdulmannan Mohammedkasam Bastawala, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1843/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V K Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Assessing Officer, however, confirmed the addition of sum of Rs.19,96,363/- on account of unexplained expenditure and also initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) for failure to comply with notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 16.06.2019, 12.09.2019 and 12.11.2019. 4. In appeal ... assessee is in appeal before us, against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 6. In case of Vedabai vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression “reasonable

Abdulmannan Mohammedkasam Bastawala, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1797/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V K Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Assessing Officer, however, confirmed the addition of sum of Rs. 19,96,363/- on account of unexplained expenditure and also initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) for failure to comply with notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 16.06.2019, 12.09.2019 and 12.11.2019. 4. In appeal ... assessee is in appeal before us, against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 6. In case of Vedabai vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the expression “reasonable