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

Srinath Basu, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-56(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 306/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Srinath Basu Income Tax Officer, Ward-56(4), Vs Kolkata 26/2, Nayan Chand Dutta Street Kolkata - 700006 [Pan: Aeepb7086F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujoy Sen, A/R & Shri Tapas Kr. Majumdar, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/01/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Counsel At The Outset Submits That Penalty Order Is Bad In Law As The Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated & Penalty Of Rs.1,38,748/- Was Levied Without Specifying The Exact Limb Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Penalty Notice Issued U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, Dated 19Th March, 2014 (Placed On Record), Submitted That The Notice Was Issued Mechanically Stating That Assessee Has Concealed Particulars Of Income Or Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income. In Other Words, The Notice Was Issued For Both The Limbs Without Strike Off Irrelevant Limb & Specifying The Charge For Which

For Appellant: Shri Sujoy Sen, A/R & Shri Tapas Kr. Majumdar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

DCIT, CC-3, Thane vs. M/S. Sai Sugam Enterprises, Vasai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1474/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1474/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Dcit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Sai Sugam Enterprises D- Room No. 11, A-Wing, 6Th Ii-01/02 Aakansha Vs. Floor, Ashar I. T. Park, Commercial Comp., Road No. 16-Z Wagle Nallasopara (West), Industrial Estate, Thane 401209. (W)-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abvfs4193G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune Dated 10.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.71,78,070/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 14.02.2017 For Ay. 2011-12. According To Him, On Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Taken Note Of The Fact That In The Notice Issued By Ao Before Levy Of Penalty, The Ao Failed To Strike Out The Faults/Charges Which Are Not Applicable To Assessee. Meaning, Ao In The Penalty Notice Didn’T Specify The Fault/Charge Against Which Assessee Is Being Proceeded Against For Levy Of Penalty; & So, Assesse Was In The Dark As To What Was The Fault Charged Against

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274