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

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 of the 25,141 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c)

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.

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

Judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

Vinay Gupta, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 28, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 560/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhuryi.T.A. No.560/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vinay Gupta………………..........................………………………….……Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Adcpg1931B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-28, Kolkata.........……………........…………...………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2021 Order Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhury: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-8, Kolkata Dated 24.08.2020 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee In This Case Is The Imposition Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Very Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Charge For Imposition Of Penalty Is Not Specific & That The Assessing Officer Has Failed To Arrive At The Satisfaction As To Which Charge The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Should Be Levied On The Assessee Whether For Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. That Bringing Our Attention To The Penalty Notice Annexed At Page 17 Of The Paper-Book, Which Is As Follows:

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

M/S. Sayaji Steel, Vadodara vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 974/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2008-09 M/S. Sayaji Steel, Dy. Commissioner Of 72, Vasant Compound, Yamuna Vs Income-Tax, Mills, Nr. Dabhoi Road, Circle 3(1), Vadodara-390003 Vadodara Pan : Aapfs 7174 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara (“Cit(A) In Short) Dated 2Nd April 2019 Passed For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Amounting To Rs.9,10,024/-, Which Was Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 By The Assessing Officer. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2008 Declaring Total Income At Rs.5,87,770/- Which Was Revised On 21.11.2008 Declaring Total Income At Rs.12,96,280/-. The Scrutiny Assessment Was Passed On 20.12.2010 Determining The Total Income At Rs.29,45,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Made An Addition Of M/S Sayaji Steel Vs. Dcit Ay : 2008-09 2

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr DR
Section 271(1)(c)