Section 274 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.471

Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 471 (Procedure) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 471 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 274 is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 of the 4,894 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 274

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Manu Engg
122 ITR 306 · 1980 · High Court
505
citing judgments

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa
83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court
502
citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

Judgments on Section 274

Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

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

Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople, Beed vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Beed

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 950/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople, The Income Tax Officer, Mangalnath Colony, Gajanan Vs Ward-1, Beed. Krupa Niwas, Beed Road, Malalgaon – 431131. Pan: Aahpo 1059 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 05.04.2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Arising Out Of The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 5/12/2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, It May Please Be Held That The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Is Null & Void Since The Initiation Of Penalty Proceedings & Notice U/S.274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Both Are Without Proper Application Of Mind. - Rs.1,56,101/- 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty On The Capital Gain Amount Of Rs.7,80,508/- Arose Due To Difference Between Indexed Cost Of Acquisition As On 01/04/1981 Allowed By The Ao In Assessment As Compared To That Finalized In Appeal By Cit(A) On Basis Of Valuation Done By Dvo. The Said Penalty May Please Be Deleted. Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople [A]

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

Sandip D. Patil, L/H of Late Dinkar A. Patil, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (2), Kolhapur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1682/PUN/2019[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.1680, 1681 & 1682 /Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1996-97, 97-98 & 1998-99 Late Dinkar Arjun Patil, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Sandip D. Patil, Vs Ward-1(2), Kolhapur. 790/40, Raigad Colony, Panchgaon Road, Kolhapur – 416008. Pan: Ahipp 8226 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For Assessment Years I.E.1996-97, 97-98, 98-99, All Dated 23.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2009.These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By Common Order As The Issue Involved Is Same. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal Number 1680/Pune/2019 Ay 1996-97 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 80L

Sandip D. Patil, L/H of Late Dinkar A. Patil, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (2), Kolhapur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1681/PUN/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.1680, 1681 & 1682 /Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1996-97, 97-98 & 1998-99 Late Dinkar Arjun Patil, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Sandip D. Patil, Vs Ward-1(2), Kolhapur. 790/40, Raigad Colony, Panchgaon Road, Kolhapur – 416008. Pan: Ahipp 8226 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For Assessment Years I.E.1996-97, 97-98, 98-99, All Dated 23.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2009.These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By Common Order As The Issue Involved Is Same. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal Number 1680/Pune/2019 Ay 1996-97 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 80L