Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(a) is Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa (133 ITR 7), cited in 57 of the 50 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(a)

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa
133 ITR 7 · 1982 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal
157 ITR 484 · 1986 · High Court
50
citing judgments

The revisional power of the Commissioner under section 263 can be exercised when the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, and the CIT finds such omission to be erroneous.

ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain
242 ITR 45 · 2000 · High Court
48
citing judgments

An assessment order is not considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 solely because the Assessing Officer failed to initiate penalty proceedings. The Commissioner cannot direct the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 263, as they are distinct from assessment proceedings.

CIT v. C. R. K. Swami
173 ITR 510 · 1988 · High Court
45
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax cannot use their revisionary power under Section 263 to direct the initiation of penalty proceedings, as penalty proceedings are distinct and separate from assessment proceedings.

Aluminium Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
80 Taxmann 184 · 1995 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Addition to the profit of an assessee cannot be made solely on the ground of low profits without a specific finding that the assessee's accounts are incorrect or incomplete. The Assessing Officer cannot dispute the assessee's method of accounting or claim a change in method without justification.

Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals
123 ITR 874 · 1980 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) cannot direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power under Section 263 of the Act, if the AO had not initiated such proceedings in the assessment order.

157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd.
192 ITR 337 · 1991 · High Court
36
citing judgments

When the Assessing Officer does not initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, the Commissioner cannot direct the Assessing Officer to initiate them, as penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings.

(supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies
201 ITR 289 · 1993 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Revisionary powers under section 263 cannot be invoked solely to direct the initiation of penalty proceedings.

CIT v. ParmanandM.Patel
278 ITR 3 · 2005 · High Court
32
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) cannot direct the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) or section 273(2)(c) while exercising powers under section 263, as the CIT himself is not empowered to record the satisfaction for such penalties.

ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan
200 ITR 153 · 1993 · High Court
29
citing judgments

The Commissioner (CIT) cannot direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act while exercising revisional powers under Section 263, as penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings. The CIT cannot pass an order under Section 263 pertaining to penalty.

Judgments on Section 271(1)(a)

Amin Chand Payarelal vs. Inspecting Assti. Commissioner, Income Tax and Ors

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4114/2001Supreme Court05 Sept 2006

Bench: Assessment Is Made Would Not Absolve Assessee From The Liability To Pay Penalty-Even If Assessee Deposits Interest For Late Filing, Penalty, Could Be Levied Under S.271 (/)(A). The Question Which Arose For Consideration In The Present Appeal Was D That When Return Has Been Filed Beyond The Extended Period For Filing Under Section 139(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Assessee Has Paid Interest For The Late Filing, Whether Penalty Under Section 271(1)(A) Of The Act Could Be Levied Thereon. E Dismissing The Appeal, The Court Held: Sub-Section (4) Of Section 139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Provides For A Situation Where The Returns Are Not Filed By An Assessee Within The Time Allowed Or Within The Extended Period For Filing Such Returns. Merely Because Sub-Section (4) Of Section 139 Enable The Assessee To File His Return At Any Time Before The Assessment Is Made, It Does Not Mean That His Liability F To Pay Penalty Under Section 27L(L)(A) Is Erased. The Penalty Could Be Levied Under Section 27L(L)(A) Of The Act. The Impugned Judgment Of The Division Bench Of High Court That Mere Deposit Of Interest Would Not Absolve The Assessee From Its Liability To Pay The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(A) Of The Act Is Upheld. (735-A, G; 736-A-Bj G H Commissioner Of Income Tax, A.P. V. M. Chandra Sekhar, (1985) 151 Itr 433, Distinguished. Pradip Lamps Works V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (2001) 249 Itr 797, Relied On. 730 '

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(a)Section 27l