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)

Smt. Subhra Nag, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1315/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No.1315/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Subhra Nag.................................………………………………………………………………..Appellant P-7A, Madhusudan Park, 104A, Karunamoyee Ghat Road, Kolkata – 700 082. [Pan: Acopd 5458 R] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………………….................Respondent Ward – 63(1), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Mihir Bandhopadhyay, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, Sr(Dr), Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 15, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 19, Kolkata Dated 25.04.2018 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 31,390/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.07.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 5,38,680/-. In Her Bank Account With State Bank Of India, The Assessee Had Made Total Cash Deposits Of Rs. 4,35,000/- During The Year Under Consideration. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Was Called Upon By The Ao To Explain The Source Of The Said Cash Deposits. The Explanation Offered By The Assessee As Regards The Source Of Cash Deposits Was Accepted

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Manoj Kumar Shaw, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No.1291/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Manoj Kumar Shaw................................…………………………............................................Appellant Maheswari Appartment, 13, Khetra Chatterjee Lane,Salkia, Howrah – 711 106 [Pan: Atmps 3105 M] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………………….................Respondent Ward – 46(2), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Radhe Shyam, Cit, Dr & Shri Shankar Halder, Sr(Dr), Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 15, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 14, Kolkata Dated 04.11.2015 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 3,24,159/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Hossiery Goods. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 15.03.2010 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 3,03,080/-. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 24.11.2011, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Ao At Rs. 14,14,441/- After Making Inter Alia The Addition Of Rs. 9,80,000/- On Account Of Undisclosed Investment In Mutual Fund. Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Were Also Initiated By The Ao & Since The Explanation

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

M/S. Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6598/DEL/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2000-01 Yum ! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 12Th Floor, Tower D, Ward-27(4), Global Business Park, New Delhi. Mg Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacy1883E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07Th September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company In Restaurant Business. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th December, 2000 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.99,81,920/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 8Th May, 2001. Subsequently, On The Basis Of The Report Of The Special Auditor, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3)/147 On 29Th December, 2006 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,54,61,031/-. However, After Allowing Carried Forward Business Loss & Depreciation Of Earlier Years, The Total Income Was Determined At Nil. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27l