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)

Shri Pradeepkumar Biyani, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 20/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.20/Srt/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pradeep Kumar Biyani, V. Deputy Commissioner Of Shop No.28/29, Vardhman Complex, Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Bhatar Road, Surat-395 017. Surat. [Pan: Aaspb 9593 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 12.02.2020 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On: 13.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Surat [In Short “The Cit(A)”] Dated 07-06-2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Ground No.1 Is Not Pressed Before Us, Hence, Treated As Dismissed As Not Pressed. 3. Ground No.2 Relates To Estimating Of Gross Profit At 35% To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal In Similar Case Of Shri Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal Mithawala Held As Net Profit To Be 35% Whereas The Assessee Has Shown 6.7% Net Profit. 4. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Is Identical & Covered By The Decision Of Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case In Pradeepkumar Biyani V. Dcit, Circle-1(3)Surat/Ita. 20/Srt/2017/A.Y.2013-14 Page 2 Of 3

Ajinkya Dilip Kotepatil, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1877/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1877/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ajinkya Dilip Kotepatil, C/O. S.B. Boob & Associates, F-1, Sumangal Plaza, Hdfc Cross Road, Canada Corner, Nashik-422005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Cqxpk0159D बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-1(3), ……""यथ" / Respondent Nashik. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Alok Malviya सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Nashik Dated 13.06.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Assessee Had Voluntarily Surrendered The Income During The Course Of Assessment Proceeding & Paid Almost Taxes Accordingly. However, The Ao & Appellate Commissioner Erred & Levied & Confirmed The Penalty. 2. This Was The First Time When The Assessee Was Scrutinized & He Is A Student After All. However, He Had Declared Additional Income & Paid The Taxes & Showed His Bonafide Intention.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Alok Malviya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

Late Shri Babanlal Bhikulal Agrawal, Jalgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/PUN/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Late Shri Babanlal Bhikulal Agrawal, Through L/H Shri Anil Babanlal Agrawal, 84-85, Main Road, Raver, Dist. Jalgaon-425508 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabha7676P बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-2(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Jalgaon. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri Vijay Netke सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Nashik Dated 28.10.2014 For The Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1] The Ld.Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Penalty Imposed Of Rs. 10,12,126/- U/S.271(1)(C) On Account Of Alleged Addition Made At Rs.32,13,100/(Inclusive Of Enhanced Income), Without Establishing Any Alleged Facts/Thing & Bringing Any Corroborative Evidence On Record, Even In Penalty Proceedings & Hence, Penalty Be Deleted 2] On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I T Act, Without Rebutting Any Contention Of The Appellant Filed Before Him. Therefore

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Netke
Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)