“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)

Pkh Ventures Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate

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

ITA 3322/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anirudh Dave (Instructed by Shri Piyush Agarwal)For Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

violates F the principal of natural justice and is therefore liable to be quashed. 2. The Notices issued under section 271(1)(c) on 20/12/2019, 23/02/2021, 17/03/2021 and 19/08/2021 and communicated on the email id alok@pkhs.in. which belongs to family member who is no more the director of the company

The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 3021/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) The Ruby Mills Limited Dcit, Circle – 8(3)(1), 11Th Floor, Ruby House A, J.K. Sawant Vs Aayakarbhawan,Mumbai-400020. Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. [Pan No. Aaact0220G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

total income were duly furnished by assesseeno deficiency in furnishing of facts had been pointed out by Assessing Officer, deeming provision under section 271(1)(c) would not stand attracted and accordingly. penalty was to be deleted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company ... with Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. In our considered view, the substantial ground of appeal relates to validity of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in business of spinning and weaving

Chandrakumar Bhanwarlal Kothari, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2265/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2265/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Chandrakumar Bhanwarlal V/S. Ito, Ward 19(1)(1), Kothari बिाम Piramal Chamber, Ward 5/213, Shiv Prerna Shivaji 19(1)(1), Mumbai-400025 Nagar, Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400025 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amnpk9283E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Suryadev Yadev & Shri Karan Hariya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan

For Appellant: Shri Suryadev Yadev & ShriFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan

Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

National Faceless Assessment Centre. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner erred in upholding the wrong levy penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, as there was no intentional non-compliance. The Assessee seeks the opportunity to present proof of income sources and requests ... penalty be waived. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessee requests that these reasons be considered, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) be waived, and an opportunity be granted to present the case on its merits. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend

DCIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Singapore

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1453/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

final assessment order pursuant to the directions of the DRP. In the final assessment order, the AO has stated that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Subsequently, the AO issued a notice under section 271(1)(c) initiating the penalty ... assessee and held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed particulars of income in terms of Explanation-(1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 4,99,97,296/-. On further appeal the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by holding

Gautam Automobiles Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, C R Building

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 426/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071415601(1), dated 20.12.2024 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. ITA No.426/Del ... hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have furnished it’s inaccurate particulars of income to levy section 271(1)(c) penalty in question amounting to Rs.2,81,022/- vide Assessing Officer’s order dated 27.03.2019 which stands upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed

Brij Veer Singh, Shamli vs. Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), Shamli

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 403/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Brij Veer Singh, Vill.- Mundt Khurd, Ward-3(1)(4), Distt. Shamli, Shamli Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aufps9785B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071942724(1), Dated 07.01.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. It Emerges At The Outset During The Course Of Hearing That The Learned Cit(A)/Nfac In It’S Lower Appellate Order Has Proceeded Ex-Parte Against The Assessee Thereby Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Making The Corresponding Disallowances/Additions Herein. 3. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Foregoing Rival Stand & Are Of The Considered View That Since The Cit(A) Has Proceeded Ex-Parte Against The Assessee, Possibility Of Some Communication Gaps Between The Taxpayer & The Arguing Counsel Involving The Newly Introduced System Of Faceless Hearings, Could Not Be Altogether Ruled Out. 4. Faced With This Situation, We Deem It Appropriate, In The Larger Interest Of Justice, To Restore The Assessee’S Instant Appeal Back To The Cit(A)/Nfac For His Afresh Appropriate Adjudication, Within Three Effective Opportunities Subject To A Rider That The Taxpayer Shall Plead & Prove The Case At His Own Risk & Responsibility, In Consequential Proceedings. Ordered Accordingly.

Section 271(1)(c)

/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071942724(1), dated 07.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest

Smt. Renu Tyagi, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Gurugram

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 309/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Ito, Smt. Renu Tyagi, Tower-G, Flat 001, Ward-3(5), Bestech Park View Ananda, Gurgaon Sector-81, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Asxpk6470H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070458893(1), Dated 19.11.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. She Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. Learned Departmental Representative Vehemently Argues During The Course Of Hearing That Both The Lower Authorities Herein Have Rightly Held The Assessee To Have Concealed As Well As Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Her Taxable Income; In The Assessing Officer’S Order Dated 01.06.2018 Thereby Levying The Impugned Section 271(1)(C) Penalty Of Rs.31,56,880/- & Upheld In The Lower Appellate Discussion. 3. It Is In This Factual Backdrop That We Sought To Verify The Final Outcome Of The Corresponding Quantum Proceedings In The Assessee’S Case. It Transpires That The Assessee’S Quantum Appeal

Section 271(1)(c)

/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070458893(1), dated 19.11.2024 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest ... concealed as well as furnished inaccurate particulars of her taxable income; in the Assessing Officer’s order dated 01.06.2018 thereby levying the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.31,56,880/- and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. It is in this factual backdrop that we sought

Kissan Petro Oils Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle -13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

ITA 5599/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bikash Kumar Thakur on behalf of Shri Dinesh Chandra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO passed assessment order dated 30.12.2017. Separate penalty proceedings were initiated. Show-cause-notices for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.02.2019 and 17.03.2022 were issued. On conclusion of penalty proceedings, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 31.03.2022. 3. Against ... Departmental Authorities. 7. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that penalty order dated 31.03.2022 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is in pursuance to assessment order dated 30.12.2017. Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi vide order dated 31.05.2024, in ITA No. 4700/Del/2019

Emmsons International Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 3560/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Emmsons International Ltd., 17, Community Centre, Circle-7(1), Zamrudpur, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaace0442K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suresh Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 271(1)(c)

/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065412675(1), dated 05.06.2024 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Heard both ... hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have furnished it’s inaccurate particulars of income to levy section 271(1)(c) penalty in question amounting to 5,54,648/- vide Assessing Officer’s order dated 16.03.2022 which stands upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed

Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tisya Jewels, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 298

furnish accurate particulars of the income and relevant evidences by the assessee, even at the penalty proceedings, which attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 5. "Whether on the facts ... Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c), in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies in their accounts even if the addition

Income Tax Officier- 23(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tisya Jewels, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 298

Tin Time Consultancy Private Limited (Successor of Avdharna Trading Private Limited), Bhiwandi vs. DCIT Circle 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 2493/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tim Time Consultancy Private Dcit Circle 1, Kalyan Limited (Successor Of Avdharna Mohan Plaza Wayle Nagar, Trading Private Limited) Vs. Swanand Colony, Gandhar 302, Cfc Bldg No. 1, 3Rd Floor, Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan, Asmeeta Textile Park, Addl Kalyan Kalyan Dombivli, Bhiwandi Ind Estate Area, Village Mumbai- 421301 Kone, Bhiwandi, 421311 Pan No. Aaica 4811 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. MuditFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

raising following grounds: Tin Time Consultanc Private Limted 2 (Successor of Avdharna Trading Pvt. Ltd.) “Being aggrieved by the order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, passed by the Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC and upheld by the Learned Commissioner of Income ... Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, has erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,78,90,426/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without adjudicating on the merits of the case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well