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)

Ashwin Vaghasia, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 374/SRT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.374/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Virtual Court Hearing) Ashwin Vaghasia V The Income Tax Officer, 35, Sahyog Chambers Mini Bazar, S. Ward-3(1)(1), Surat. Sardar Chowk, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abmpv2520M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, C.A. Respondent By : Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y.2006-07 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat, [Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cas-3/Trfd/V/270/2014-15 Dated 25.10.2017, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 19.03.2014. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Is That Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs.4,07,023/- Under Section 271(1) (C ) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.Brief Facts As Discernible From The Orders Of Lower Authorities Are That Assessee Is An Individual Before Us & He Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 01.02.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 4,97,432/- Which Inter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Vijay Kedia (HUF), Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1266/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA)&For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Pal Gram Hindu Sarvajanik Trust, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2018[2011-12 ]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.536/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pal Gram Hindu Sarvajanik Trust, V The Income Tax Officer, At 7 Post : Pal, Tal. Choryasi, Exemption Ward, Surat. S. Dist – Surat – 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatp 2544 G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat [Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 30.05.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of 1The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 24.03.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “[1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. [2] With The Assessing Officer Failing To Specify In The Assessment Order As To Whether The Proceedings Were Initiated For Concealing Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, The Penalty Order Was Required To Be Knocked Down In View Of The Decision Of The Gujarat High Court In Case Of Sorathia Engineering Co. Ltd. (282-Itr-642). [3] The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Vary Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 142(1)Section 22Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Anuragraiji Vallabhraiji Goswami, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1210/AHD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1210/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Anuragraiji Vallabhraiji Goswami, V The Income Tax Officer, 10/137, Mota Mandir, Chauta Bazar, Ward-2(2)(1), Surat. S. Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpg 3482 G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yogesh B. Shah - Ar Respondent By : Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 25.04.2017. 2. At The Outset Itself, Shri Yogesh B. Shah, Ld.Counsel For The Assessee, Pleads That In Assessee’S Case, Ld.Cit(A) Adjudicated The Issue On Merits & Confirmed The Penalty, Levied By Assessing Officer, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.1,41,571/-. However, Ld Cit(A) Did Not Condone The Minor Delay Of Six Days But Passed The Order On Merits Also By Confirming The Penalty Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The Ld Counsel Contends That Assessee Does Not Wish To Press The Issue Of ‘Condonation Of Delay’ Which Was Before The Ld Cit(A). The Ld.Counsel Further Submits That In Assessee’S Case The Tribunal Has Passed The Order In Ita No.1331/Ahd/2015, For The A.Y. 2006-07, Order Dated 13.02.2020, Wherein The Tribunal Has Condoned The Delay In Filing The Quantum Appeal & Then Deleted The Quantum Addition On Which The Penalty Was Levied. Since The Quantum Addition Has Been Deleted, Therefore, Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh B. Shah - ARFor Respondent: Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 56