Which cases are most cited on Section 246?

CIT v. Rampur Engg (309 ITR 143) — 35 citing judgments; HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. v. ACIT (97 Taxmann.com 3) — 24 citing judgments; CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. (117 ITR 15) — 6 citing judgments; Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC); Devsons (P) Ltd. v. CIT (198 TTJ 513) — 4 citing judgments; Harvinder Singh v. ITO (179 DTR 225) — 3 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 246?

BharatTax indexes 130 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 246 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 246 of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Rampur Engg (309 ITR 143) is the decision most relied on for Section 246, cited in 35 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.

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

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

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

citing judgments

Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC); Devsons (P) Ltd. v. CIT

198 TTJ 513 · 2019 · ITAT

citing judgments

Harvinder Singh v. ITO

179 DTR 225 · 2019 · Reported

citing judgments

CIT v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd.

258 Taxmann 63 · 2018 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

PCIT v. Blackroak Securities (P.) Ltd.

297 Taxmann 69 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Kooka Sidhwa & Co. v. CIT

54 ITR 54 · 1964 · Reported

citing judgments

Mahavir AGENCY v. Income Tax OFFICER

58 ITD 386 · ITAT

citing judgments

Mahavir AGENCY vs. Income Tax OFFICER 58 ITD 386 (Ahmadabad), Income Tax Officer v. Alhusain Constructions (P) ltd.

68 ITD 390 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 246

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipurq, Jaipur vs. Jugal Kishore Garg Alias Sh. Jugal Kishore Derewala, Jaipur

ITA 1317/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

National Highway Authority of India, Kanpur vs. A CIT (TDS), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2012-13 National Highway Authority V. Addl. Cit (Tds) Of India 7/199, Radiance Town, 53, Basant Vihar, Naubasta, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Kanpur-208021. 208002. Pan:Aaatn1936H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 154Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 275

Sandip Gulab Gogawale, Pune vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 667/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.667/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sandip Gulab Gogawale, Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3), Pune. 143, A/P- Gogalwadi, Taluka- Haveli, District- Pune- 412205. Pan : Allpg3405D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandip Gogawale Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.01.2025 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing, The Assessee Himself Appeared In Person & Submitted That Due To Ignorance & 2 Inadvertent Error The Instant Appeal Against The Penalty Order Was Filed Directly Before This Tribunal Instead Of Filing The First Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A). In This Regard, The Assessee Also Filed An Application & Requested Before The Bench To Pass Appropriate Order. He Submitted That He Will File The Appeal Before The Cit(A) As Per Law. 3. We Have Heard Ld. Counsels From Both The Sides & Perused The Material Available On Record. Considering The Application Filed By The Assessee On 09.09.2025, We Find That Admittedly The Assessee Was Required To File First Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Against The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. However, Due To Ignorance The Assessee Inadvertently Filed The Instant Appeal Before This Tribunal. As Per Section 246 & 246A Of The Income Tax Act, Appeal Against The Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Lies Before Jcit(A)/Cit(A) & Not Before This Tribunal. Therefore, The Instant Appeal Directly Filed Before This Tribunal Is Not Maintainable & Accordingly The Present Appeal Is Dismissed As Infructuous.

For Appellant: Shri Sandip GogawaleFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 246Section 271(1)(c)

Creative Ashtech Power Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarcreative Ashtech Power V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Projects Private Limited, 7Th बनाम Income Tax, Circle– Floor, Raheja Point 1, Opp. 14(1)(2), Room No. 455, Vakola Market Nehru Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Santacruz (East), Mumbai– Marg, Mumbai – 400020, 400055, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcd1054F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)

Anup Kumar HUF, Patna vs. ACIT, Cent. Cir-1, Patna

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

ITA 192/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 192/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Anup Kumar Huf,…………………...….………Appellant 4A, Narayan Nilayam Apartment, Road No. 6 Rajendra Nagar, Patna-800016 Bihar [Pan:Aahha5422R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax....Respondent Central Circle-1, Patna

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 246Section 251Section 5