Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.451

Section 271DA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 451 (Penalty for failure to comply with provisions of section 186) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 451 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 271DA is CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 1972 CTR (SC) 295 (83 ITR 369), cited in 94 of the 211 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271DA

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.

Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
379 ITR 100 · 2015 · High Court
42
citing judgments

The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not a prerequisite for the initiation of penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax are valid. The date of the show cause notice by the penalty imposing authority is relevant for computing limitation for imposing penalty under Section 271DA.

CIT v. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd.
183 ITR 471 · 1990 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Sri Sai Balaji Gas Cylinder (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
155 Taxmann.com 319 · 2023 · Reported
7
citing judgments
CIT v. Bikaji Ramchandra
183 ITR 478 · 1990 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Sait Bansilal & Rangisetti Veeranna v. Commissioner of Income Tax
83 ITR 750 · 1972 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Andhra Pradesh v. Venkatraman Chudava vs. Muramura Merchant
159 ITR 59 · 1986 · High Court
6
citing judgments
CIT v. Mysore Fertilisers Co.
137 ITR 378 · 1982 · High Court
5
citing judgments
Tvi. Chandro Process v. DCIT
173 Taxmann.com 976 · 2025 · High Court
4
citing judgments
Continental Cement Company v. Union of India
49 Taxmann.com 374 · 2014 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 271DA

M/S. Ramesh Chandra Parekh., Kolkata vs. ITO, Delhi, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1259/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1259/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Ramesh Chandra Parekh…..…......................…...……………....Appellant City Centre, 19, Synagogue Street, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadfr2844L] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. M. Thard, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271Da Of The Act On Account Of Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269St For Accepting Cash Payment More Than The Prescribed Limit Of Rs.2,00,000/- In An Aggregate From A Person In Respect Of A Single Transaction. 3. The Ld. Counsel, At The Outset, Has Submitted That The Aforesaid Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269St Was Not Intentional, Rather, The

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

Pearl Beverages Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Range-2, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2346/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2023AY 2018-19
Section 133(6)Section 136(6)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

M/S Prashanth Fertility Research Centre Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 389/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.389/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Prashanth Fertility Research Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Centre Pvt. Ltd., Door No. 76 & 77, Income Tax, Harrington Road, Chennai 600 031. Corporate Range 5, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaccp2513J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 22.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 271Da Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 269SSection 271D

Inter Globle Aviation Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2539/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryinter Globle Aviation Ltd. Vs. Acit Upper Ground Floor, Circle – 10(1) Westren Wing, Thapper New Delhi House-124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 Pan No. Aabci 2726 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Soumya Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.09.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) - Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Inter Globle Aviation Ltd Vs Acit 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Airlines Under The Name & Style Of Indigo. Assessee Electronically Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018-19 On 30.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.18,26,11,80,910/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Vide Order Dated 19.04.2021 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs.24,31,89,53,536/-.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 271D

Amrit Breeder Farms Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 594/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274Section 285BSection 44A

Sarovar Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1705/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka GhiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271DSection 5(2)

Balaji Auto Enterprises Mysore Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 547/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

M/S. National Decorators Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1790/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1790/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) M/S. National Decorators बिधम/ Jcit Of It, Cir-25(3) 2, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Kautilya Bhawan, G Vs. Road, Vile Parle (E), Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400056. Complex Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffn0305E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Against The Penalty Confirmed By Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ao) U/S 271Da Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 269SSection 271D

Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha vs. The Additional/Joint/Deputy

In the result, I pass the following:

WP/17507/2022HC Karnataka22 Sept 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.17507 Of 2022(T-It)

Section 156Section 271D

M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Oil Products, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 489/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms.Padmavathy S.M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Vs Pcit, Central Oil Products C.R. Building D.No. 1-4(9), Manur Fisheries Queen'S Road Road, Kota, Post Kota Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 0576221 Pan – Aaefj1257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocte Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 28.03.2022 Passed For Ay 2018-19 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Pcit) Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocteFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 269Section 269SSection 69C

ACIT Cent.Cir-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1568/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Mehta
Section 12ASection 131Section 250Section 269SSection 271D