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

Kalpana Kannangath Kutty, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissionr of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4896/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Kalpana Kannangath Kutty Assistant Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 4506, 45Th Floor, Tower 4, Tax Circle – 112(1), Mumbai Vs. Crescent Bay, Jerbai Wadia Road, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Agipk4160H (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Present) A/W. Ms. Sneha More Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr,. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2006-07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant & In Law Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Upholding The Infructuous Penalty Of Rs. 5,89,279/- Wrongly Levied For A.Y. 2006-07. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant & In Law Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Considering The Penalty Order Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Ld. Ao Prior To Passing Of Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Which Is Dated 19.12.2008. 2 Kalpana Kannangath Kutty

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Present) a/w. Ms. Sneha MoreFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr,. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 40

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Limited, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2253/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2253/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Income Tax, Limited, No. 4, 10A, East Central Circle 2(4), Cross Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai. Vellore 632 006, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aadcj4440P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Cancelling The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I