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)

DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shobha Ansar Jewllery Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2053/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 2053/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 2054/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 2055/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shobha Asar Jewellery Tax-8(2)(1), Aayarka Bhawan, Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 624, M.K. Rd., फनाभ/ 78-B, Sunshine Building, Mumbai-400 020 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Allcs9865R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-14, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-14/It-104C/16-17, Cit(A)-14/It-

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, ARFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT - 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6426/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6425/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6426/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 1140/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Maharashtra Tourism Tax, Circle 1(2)(2), Development Corporation Room No. 535, 5 Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. फनाभ/ Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 C.D.O. Hutments, Opp. Lic 020 Bldg, Mada Cama Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacm0712G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Mamta Bansal, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Anil Sathe, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-8, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; Ay 10-11 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-365 & 366/15-16, Cit(A)- 2/It/10479/2016-17 Vide Dated 07.08.2017, 17.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 01.03.2013, 27.03.2015, 28.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Mamta Bansal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sathe, AR
Section 143(3)

V.B. Builders, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 V.B. Builders, Vs Dcit, C/O Praveen Aggarwal & Co.,Cas, Circle-2, 23, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Ghaziabad. Gole Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aagfv0254P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kvsr Krishnan, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.6,63,960/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 Which Has Been Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,78,80,820/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961 On 30Th December, 2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,00,28,920/- Wherein He Made An Addition Of Rs.21,48,102/- By Estimating The Profit At 14.5% As Agreed By The Assessee For Such Estimation. Subsequently, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Distinguishing The Various Decisions Cited Before Him, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.6,63,763/- Being 100% Of Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (2)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6724/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6724/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora The Income Tax Officer S-1, Second Floor, The Sion Ward 26(2)(5), Mumbai- फनाभ/ Ushakunj Chs, Sion (East), 400 051 Mumbai-400 022 Vs. (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaapv7822R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-38, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-48/Ito-26(2)(5)/It-465/2016-17 Vide Dated 29.09.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(5), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 04.01.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; Ay 10-11 Act On Estimation Of Gross Profit At The Rate Of 12.5% Of The Bogus Purchases. For This, Assessee Has Raised Following Two Grounds :-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Rajmata Jijabai Co.Op.Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Warad 15 (1)(3) Now ITO Ward 26 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6694/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6694/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2007-08) Rajmata Jijabai Co-Op Hsg. The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd. Ward, Mumbai फनाभ/ 28, Veena Beena, Gurunank Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400 050 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaar2683R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri M. Subramanian, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-38, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-38/Ito.15(1)(3)/It.10814/2014-15 Vide Dated 24.07.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Rajmata Jijabai Co-Op Hsg. Society Ltd.; Ay 07-08 Tax Officer, Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2007-08 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2010 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). The Penalty Is Levied By Ito, Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai Under Section 271(1)(C) Vide Order Dated 26.03.2014. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground No.1:-

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274