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)

Avinash Anant Kulkarni, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1896/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1896/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Avinash Anant Kulkarni, C-11, Kapil Malhar, Baner Road, Pune-411045. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Abcpk7943F बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-7(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Pune Dated 31.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A)-3, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961; Levied By The Learned Ao, Amounting To Rs. 2,39,867/- (Being 100% On The Addition Amount Of Rs 9,05,997) For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars & Concealment Of Income On Account Of Non Disclosure Of Officers Superannuation Funds Received From Cosmo Films Ltd. 2. The Learned L-T Authorities Erred In Not Appreciating That The Purpose Of Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 Is Willful Concealment Of Income, Leading To Evasion / Avoidance Of Tax. The Learned L-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That Appellant Was Under Bonafide Belief That Tax Compliance W.R.T. Superannuation Funds Received Have Already Been Complied With.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Om Prakash Dudani, Asansol vs. ITO, WD-2(4), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 993/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz)] I.T.A. No. 993/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Om Prakash Dudani.....................................…………………………..............................Appellant 24A, 3Rd Floor, Kamala Nagar, Delhi – 110 007 [Pan: Acxpd 3299 B] Vs Ito, Ward-2(4), Asansol...................…………………………………………………...............Respondent Parmar Building, G.T. Road, Asansol – 713 304. Appearances By: Shri R.N. Ram, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2019 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Asansol Dated 12.12.2018 Whereby He Sustained Partly The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case In An Individual Who Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 25.08.2008 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 3,98,737/-. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 16.12.2010, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Ao At Rs. 15,35,085/- After Making Inter Alia Addition Of Rs. 5,93,500/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act For Non-Deduction Of Tax At Source From ‘Godown Rent’ & ‘Office Rent’ & Addition Of Rs. 4,83,837/- U/S 68 By Treating The Loans Received By The Assessee From His Friends & Relatives As Unexplained Cash Credit. On Confirmation Of The Said Two Additions By The Ld. Cit(A) In The Quantum Proceedings, Show Cause Notice U/S 271(1)(C) Was Issued By The Ao & Since The Explanation Offered By The 2 I.T.A. No. 993/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Om Prakash Dudani

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

Prasanta Kumar Ghosal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-22(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1002/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz)] I.T.A. No. 1002/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Prasanta Kumar Ghosal.....................................…………………………...............................Appellant 115/2A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 014. [Pan: Amspg 6878 N] Vs Ito, Ward 22(1), Kolkata...................………………………………………………….............Respondent 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata – 700 016. Appearances By: Shri Somnath Roy Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2019 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 6, Kolkata Dated 17.12.2018 Passed Ex-Parte Whereby He Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee & Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 5,91,193/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 47 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of The Said Delay & Keeping In View The Reasons Given Therein, I Am Satisfied That There Is A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 47 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. Even The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. The Delay On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Is Accordingly Condoned & The Said Appeal Is Being Disposed Of On Merit.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)