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

Vishwanath Kadia Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 121 & 122/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2012-13 & 2014-15) Vishwanath Kadia Shetty Vs. Acit, Circle 22(3) 501, St. Sebestian Piramal Chamber, Classic, Road No.3, Lower Parel, Sunder Nagar, Kalina, Mumbai – 400 013 Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps5744G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 13.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 26.12.2022. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 121/Mum/2023 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 122/Mum/2023 Mutatis Mutandis. “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case & In Law The Ld. Comm Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

Vishwanath Kadia Shetty, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-22(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 121 & 122/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2012-13 & 2014-15) Vishwanath Kadia Shetty Vs. Acit, Circle 22(3) 501, St. Sebestian Piramal Chamber, Classic, Road No.3, Lower Parel, Sunder Nagar, Kalina, Mumbai – 400 013 Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps5744G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 13.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 26.12.2022. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 121/Mum/2023 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 122/Mum/2023 Mutatis Mutandis. “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case & In Law The Ld. Comm Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C