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

Ramesh Kabra, Kishangarh vs. ITO, Kishangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 979/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 979/Jp/2016 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cuke Shri Ramesh Kabra The Ito Vs. Prop: M/S.Ramesh Bartan Bhandar Ward- 1 Opp:Gopal Building, Kishangarh Ajmer Road,Madan Ganj, Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ajjpk 0077 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Satish Gupta, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By: Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/08/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Ajmer Dated 09-08-2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12, In The Matter Of Penalty Of Rs.73,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal By Passing Ex-Parte Order Dated 13-04-2017. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed The Misc. Application For Recalling The Ex-Parte Order. The Tribunal Vide Its Order Dated 18-08-2017 Recalled Its Earlier Order Dated 13-04-2017 & The Registry Was Directed To Fix The Case Shri Ramesh Kabra Vs Ito, Ward-1, Kishangarh For Hearing Afresh Before The Regular Bench. Now This Appeal Is Again Put Up

For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Chanchal Meena, JCIT
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271cSection 274

Shri Arup Kumar Bhowmick, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Burdwan

Appeal is allowed

ITA 171/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Arup Kumar Bhowmick Income Tax Officer Ward- बनाम Nabadoi, Nr. Ramkrishna 1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, / School, Tikorhat, V/S. Kachari Road, Court Burdwan-713 102 Compound, Burdwan, Pin- [Pan No.Aefpb 3107 E] 713 101 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Shuvo Chakraborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-08-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03-08-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Burdwan’S Dated 03.12.2019, Passed In Case No.19/ Cit(A)/Bwn/Ito,Wd-1(1)/2017-18 Upholding Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of ₹3,21,026/- Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Shri Shuvo Chakraborty Representing Assessee & Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Senior Departmental Representative Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Action Imposing The Penalty In Issue Of ₹3,21,026/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. It Emerges From The Penalty Notice Dated 15.12.2016 That The Assessing Officer Did Not Specify As To Whether The Assessee Is

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274