Which cases are most cited on Section 274?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) — 2,590 citing judgments; CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158) — 2,228 citing judgments; CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (73 Taxmann.com 248) — 953 citing judgments; Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11) — 812 citing judgments; CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (73 Taxmann.com 241) — 791 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 274?

BharatTax indexes 4,894 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 274 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 274 of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) is the decision most relied on for Section 274, cited in 2,590 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.

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

Nilesh Subhash Chopda, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2088/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar

Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Gulshan Yadav, Indore vs. ITO 4 (5), Indore

ITA 473/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2019

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) But Could Not Succeed.

For Appellant: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Ld. Assessing Officer err

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27l(1)(c)

Sri.Natesh Subramanya Jayaram, Madikeri vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Madikeri

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

ITA 592/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

Lodhi Property Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1232/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Debashis Dutta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 22(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1399/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1399/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Debashis Dutta..................................…………………………………………………………………..Appellant 178/N. Parui Das Para Road, Sarsuna, Kolkata – 700 061. [Pan: Agtpd 3588 R] Ito, Ward – 22(2) Kolkata...................…………………………………………………………Respondent 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Bamboovilla, Kolkata – 700 014. Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri I. Jamir, Sr(Dr), Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 27, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 19, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2018 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 3,45,355/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. As Noted At The Outset, There Is A Delay Of 15 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of The Said Delay & Keeping In View The Reasons Given Therein, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 15 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. Even The Learned Dr Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. We Accordingly Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merit.

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

Seikh Boni Israil, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 48(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1249/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1249/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Seikh Boni Israil..................................…………………………………………………………………Appellant Nabghara, Sankrail, Howrah – 711 322. [Pan: Ajfps 5882 C] Ito, Ward – 48(3) Kolkata...................………………………………………………………….Respondent 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri P.K. Ray, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri I. Jamir, Sr(Dr), Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 27, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 14, Kolkata Dated 27.02.2018 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 1,36,569/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. As Noted At The Outset, There Is A Delay Of 14 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of The Said Delay & Keeping In View The Reason Given Therein, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 14 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. Even The Learned Dr Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. We Accordingly Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merit.

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