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 2,590 of the 797 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
2,590
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. 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.

CIT v. Kaushalya
216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court
511
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

Mens rea is a necessary ingredient to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as 'inaccurate' signifies a deliberate act or omission by the assessee. Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) grants discretionary jurisdiction to the assessing authority regarding penalty amounts.

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 under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of findings in the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer must discharge the burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars with additional material.

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
80
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

Rahul Jain S/O Shri Rakesh Jain, Gali Kanda Wali, Noharia Bazar, Sirsa, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sirsa

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1219/CHANDI/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Rahul Jain Dcit Ward-1 (S/O Shri Rakesh Jain) Sector 20, Huda बनाम/ Vs. Gali Kanda Wali Sirsa Nohara Bazar, Sirsa. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aorpj-8009-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur(Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 30-09-2024 Confirming Penalty Of Rs.98.07 Lacs U/S 271Aab As Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 12-03- 2018. The Registry Has Noted Minor Delay Of 19 Days In The Appeal Which Stands Condoned. The Ld. Ar, Drawing Attention To The Factual Matrix, Referred To Various Judicial Decisions To Assail The Impugned

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur(Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 274

Paradigm Business Ventures, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1139/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1128/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1129/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1139/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Paradigm Business Ventures Dcit-Circle 1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco 45 Hollywood Plaza Cr Building Vip Road Zirakpur Mohali. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqfp-5590-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit, Virtual) – Ld. Dr & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT, Virtual) – Ld. DR & Dr
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271A