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

Amal Kumar Pradhan, Balasore vs. DCIT, Central Ciercle 2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CTK/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jun 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.189/Ctk/2026 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-2023) Amal Kumar Pradhan, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2 , C/O- Arjun Jena, Bhubaneswar Chandragadi, Azimabad, Balasore-756001 Pan No. :Almpp 3573 G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) धििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shrichitrasen Parida, Ar राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shrivijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Perbench: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10082/2021-22 Orderdated 21/01/2026For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ar Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Vijay Singh, Ld. Sr. Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Notice Issued U/S 274 R.W.S 270A Which Is At Page 15 Of The Paper-Book, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: ShriChitrasen Parida, ARFor Respondent: ShriVijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 270A(9)(c)Section 274

Ajaya Kumar Mishra, Badamba, Cuttack vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 520/CTK/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 May 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.520/Ctk/2026 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Ajaya Kumar Mishra Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1) Cuttack Badamba, Cuttack- 754021 Pan No. : Agepm 6163 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Sahu, Adv राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Perbench: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 26/03/2026 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, Against Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs.1,94,600/- Levied By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. Shri Somnath Sahu, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessing Officer Has Issued Notice U/S.274 R.W.S 271 Of The Act On 19Th December 2016, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Sahu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Narsingh, Pilibhit vs. ITO-2(4), Pilibhit

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/LKW/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 May 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Narsingh, Vs. Ito-2(4), 0, Madhotanda, Puranpur, Pilibhit, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh, India-262122 Pan: Anapn5866A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vinod Kumar Vaish, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A), Vide His Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.11.2025, Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 19.09.2025. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1) That The Order Is Bad Both On Law & Facts. The Provisions Of Section 274 & 275 Has Not Been Followed By The Assessing Authority While Passing The Order. (2) That The Concerned Authority Did Not Consider The Explanation Filed By The Appellant During The Assessment Proceeding Before The Assessing Authority & The Ld Cit Appeals Which Was Supported With Evidences & Bank Statements. The Ground Of Peak Deposit Was Not Considered By The Lower Authority While Passing The Penalty Order. (3) Because The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao In Short) Is Defective & Contrary To Law & Is Liable To Be Set Aside As The Penalty Has Been Imposed For "Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income", Whereas The Ld. Ao Has Nowhere In His Assessment Order Identified Any Inaccurate Information Supplied By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Vaish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A