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

Model Fuels Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 3(3), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 382/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11 Model Fuels Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O Rsvpc & Company, Ward-3(3), P-7, / 41A, A.J.C.Bose Road, V/S. Chowringhee Square, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700 017 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcm 8951 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Lokesh Mishra, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.Haldar, Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.01.2018 Passed In Case No.Itba/Appeal_1/2017-18/1007753670(1), Involving Proceedings 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File(S) Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Action Imposing The Penalty In Issue Of ₹3,13,571/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. It Emerges From The Relevant Penalty Notice Dated 28.03.2013 That The Assessing Officer Did Not Specify As To Whether The Assessee Is Accused Of Concealment Of Particulars Of Any Taxable Income Or It Had

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

Navin Kumar Ladha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Sh. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Vs Navin Kumar Ladha, Ito, 121, N.S.Road, 3Rd Floor, Room Ward-35(2), No.29, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaxpl1537A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Sankar Halder, Jcit Date Of Hearing 06.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed By Cit(A)-10, Kolkata For Ay 2014-15 Wherein He Confirmed The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”). 2. The Ld.Ar Submits That The Issue Raised In The Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows. He Also Submits That The Ao Imposed Penalty On Defective Notice Issued U/S. 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On 27-12-2016, Copy Of The Same Is On Record At Page No.1 Of Paper Book & In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Supra The Imposition Of Penalty On Defective Is Not Maintainable. 3. The Ld.Ar, Further Submits That The Statutory Notice Dt. 27-12- 2016 Issued By The Ito, Ward-35(2), Kolkata U/S. 274 R.W.S 271 Of The Act Is Defective & By Placing Reliance On The Decision Of The Hon’Ble [Assessment Year: 2014-15]

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

Satyanam Baksh Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Sh. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Vs Satyanam Baksh Singh, Ito, C/O-S.L.Kochar, Advocate, 5, Ward-43(3), 3, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Govt. Place Kolkata-700019. West, Kolkata- Pan-Albps1198R 700001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. A. Kochar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S. Halder, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By Cit(A)- 13, Kolkata For Ay 2010-11 Wherein He Confirmed The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”). 2. The Ld.Ar Submits That The Issue Raised In The Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows. He Also Submits That The Ao Imposed Penalty On Defective Notice Issued U/S. 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On 31-12-2012, Copy Of The Same Is On Record At Page No.1 Of Paper Book & In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Supra The Imposition Of Penalty On Defective Is Not Maintainable. 3. The Ld.Ar, Further Submits That The Statutory Notice Dt. 31-12- 2012 Issued By The Ito, Ward-42(3), Kolkata U/S. 274 R.W.S 271 Of The Act Is Defective & By Placing Reliance On The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs Ssa’S Emerald Meadows Supra In Ita No. 380 Of 2015 Dated 23.11.2015 Which Was Affirmed By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court By Dismissal Of Special Leave Petition (Slp)

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