Section 246 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.356

Section 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 356 (Appealable orders before Joint Commissioner (Appeals)) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 356 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 246 is CIT v. Rampur Engg (309 ITR 143), cited in 35 of the 130 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 246

CIT v. Rampur Engg
309 ITR 143 · 2009 · High Court
35
citing judgments

The power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Income-tax Act depends on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction, which must be recorded during the proceedings. If the officer is not satisfied and has not recorded this satisfaction, the penalty cannot be exercised.

HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. v. ACIT
97 Taxmann.com 3 · 2018 · ITAT
24
citing judgments

A penalty order under section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer (AO) initiates proceedings for "concealment of particulars of income" but ultimately finds the assessee guilty of "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income", or vice versa. The AO cannot be uncertain in the penalty order as to which charge applies, as this error goes to the root of the matter and is not saved by section 292B.

CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd.
117 ITR 15 · 1979 · High Court
6
citing judgments
Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC); Devsons (P) Ltd. v. CIT
198 TTJ 513 · 2019 · ITAT
4
citing judgments
Harvinder Singh v. ITO
179 DTR 225 · 2019 · Reported
3
citing judgments
CIT v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd.
258 Taxmann 63 · 2018 · Supreme Court
3
citing judgments
PCIT v. Blackroak Securities (P.) Ltd.
297 Taxmann 69 · 2024 · High Court
3
citing judgments
Kooka Sidhwa & Co. v. CIT
54 ITR 54 · 1964 · Reported
3
citing judgments
Mahavir AGENCY v. Income Tax OFFICER
58 ITD 386 · ITAT
3
citing judgments
Mahavir AGENCY vs. Income Tax OFFICER 58 ITD 386 (Ahmadabad), Income Tax Officer v. Alhusain Constructions (P) ltd.
68 ITD 390 · ITAT
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 246

Sundaram Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sundaram Home Finance Ltd, Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Sundaram Towers, Corporate Ward-6(1), No.46, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai. Vs. Chennai – 600014 अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ" Respondent Aadcs4826J Permanent Account Number Of Assessee: अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant Represented By: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan- Advocate ""थ" "ारा/Respondent Represented By: Mr.Madhan Kumar – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing: 30.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2026 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Dated 03.02.2026 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Therefore Liable To Be Set Aside.

Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)