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

Pawan Chandak, Madhya Pradesh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 272/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pawan Chandak Dcit,Central Circle 2(4), 8Th 205, Royal Park, 19/3, New Vs. Floor,Cgo Complex,Pratishtha Palasia, Indore, Madhya Bhavan, Marine Lines, M.K. Rd. Pradesh Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Achpc8310N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Assessee By : Mr . Devendra Jain, Ar Date Of Hearing :01/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2019 Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-14. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit (A)’] & Arises Out Of The Penalty Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Sustaining Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.10,36,200/- U/S 271Aab Of The Act. 3. Briefly Stated, The Facts Are That A Search & Seizure Action U/S 132 Was Carried Out By The Revenue In The Case Of M/S. Gold Sukh Safety Vaults Ltd. On 08.11.2012 & The Assessee, Who Is Proprietor Of M/S. Mangalam Courier, Was Also Covered. During The Course Of Search On 08.11.2012, Cash

For Appellant: Mr . Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Horizon Country Wide Logistics Ltd(Now Succeeded on Amalgamation by Skil Infrastructure Limited ), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7068/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kamar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7068/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Horizon Country Wide बिधम/ Dcit, Cc-6(3) 19Th Floor, Air India, M.K. Logistics Ltd. (Now Vs. Succeeded On Amalgamation Road, Mumbai-400020. By Skill Infrastructure Ltd.) Skil House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5412E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.09.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 2. Ita. No7068/M/2017 A.Y. 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D