Section 276C of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.478

Section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 478 (Wilful attempt to evade tax, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 478 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 276C is Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT (161 Taxmann 218), cited in 236 of the 25 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 276C

Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT
161 Taxmann 218 · 2007 · Supreme Court
236
citing judgments

Mens rea is a necessary ingredient to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as 'inaccurate' signifies a deliberate act or omission by the assessee. Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) grants discretionary jurisdiction to the assessing authority regarding penalty amounts.

CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal
9 SCC 589 · 2009 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarifies the scope of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that for its applicability, conditions stated in the provision must strictly exist, and making an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors
13 SCC 369 · 2008 · Supreme Court
139
citing judgments

For the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) penalty, the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars; however, this satisfaction is not required to be recorded in a particular manner or reduced to writing.

169 CTR 489 (SC); Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors
295 ITR 244 · 2007 · Supreme Court
98
citing judgments
Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills
13 SCC 448 · 2009 · Reported
91
citing judgments

For the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c), the specific conditions laid down in the section must be demonstrably met. The assessee's filed return is the primary document for furnishing income particulars, and inaccuracies therein are crucial for penalty imposition.

Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT
168 ITR 705 · 1987 · Supreme Court
86
citing judgments

An assessee's agreement to an addition or voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically establish concealment for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). While such agreement may arise from various reasons like avoiding litigation, the assessee must still discharge the burden of proving that the addition was not due to concealment.

Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu
23 VST 249 · 2009 · Supreme Court
83
citing judgments

Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars is not attracted merely because some items are not included in the tax return or the return contains incorrect statements, provided these transactions are fully incorporated and reflected in the assessee's account books.

CIT v. Prasanna Dugar
371 ITR 19 · 2015 · High Court
63
citing judgments
Western Automobiles (India) v. CIT
112 ITR 1048 · 1978 · High Court
31
citing judgments

Where an assessee agrees to the inclusion of certain amounts discovered from accounts, and such amounts are considered his income, the levy of penalty is justified without requiring further evidence of concealment.

Smt. Kiran Devi v. ACIT
125 TTJ 631 · 2009 · ITAT
23
citing judgments

Income disclosed in a return filed in response to a notice under section 153C, following a search, which was not disclosed in the original return, constitutes a clear case of concealment attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c). Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) need not be invoked in such circumstances.

Judgments on Section 276C