Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271AAB is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,585 of the 231 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271AAB

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,585
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. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
931
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.

CIT v. Kaushalya
216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court
508
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd.
149 ITR 751 · 1984 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Minor defects or mistakes in a penalty notice issued under Section 274 do not invalidate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) if the assessee suffers no prejudice and is aware of the charge. However, significant vagueness or ambiguity that demonstrates non-application of mind or causes prejudice can still render the notice invalid.

Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT
161 Taxmann 218 · 2007 · Supreme Court
236
citing judgments

To attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c), *mens rea* is essential for furnishing inaccurate particulars, signifying a deliberate act or omission by the assessee; further, Section 271(1)(iii) grants discretionary power to the Assessing Authority regarding the penalty quantum.

Ltd. v. DCIT
22 SOT 7 · 2008 · ITAT
123
citing judgments

An adverse inference cannot be drawn against an assessee based on a document found with a third party during a search, as possession is only attributable to the searched person. An addition to income based solely on an undated, unsigned seized document, without further corroborative evidence or inquiry, is not sustainable.

CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 1972 CTR (SC) 295
83 ITR 369 · 1972 · Supreme Court
94
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings. A penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of reasons given in the original order of assessment, and the assessee is not barred from challenging assessment findings during penalty proceedings.

Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT
168 ITR 705 · 1987 · Supreme Court
86
citing judgments

An assessee's agreement to an addition or voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically establish concealment for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). While such agreement may arise from various reasons like avoiding litigation, the assessee must still discharge the burden of proving that the addition was not due to concealment.

ACIT v. Marvel Associates
92 Taxmann.com 109 · 2018 · ITAT
78
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271AAB cannot be levied mechanically; the Assessing Officer must apply an independent mind, grant a hearing, and record satisfaction that the income genuinely falls within the statutory definition, which requires discovery of an unrecorded asset or income entry during search.

Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT
57 ITR 21 · 1965 · Supreme Court
67
citing judgments

The onus is on the Income Tax Department to prove that a particular receipt or amount is taxable and falls under the provisions of the Income-tax Act.

Judgments on Section 271AAB

WINWOOD MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2196/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Winwood Marketing Pvt. Ltd..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, Sn Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan 3Rd Floor, Kol – 700013. [Pan: Aabcw3528M] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata…….……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subhankar Ghosh, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.09.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 Declaring A Total Income Nil. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass With The Reason ‘Large Share Premium Received’. Accordingly, Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed Determining Total Income Of Rs.4,79,44,500/- (Share Capital Of Rs.8,30,000/- + Premium Of Rs.4,71,14,500/-) & The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein, The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed & The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) As Made By The Assessing Officer Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Showing 120 of 231 · Page 1 of 12

...