← All Phrases

“concealment of income”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)2,901 judgments

The decision most relied on for concealment of income is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on concealment of income

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.

Judgments citing concealment of income

Jaykrishna Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -2(3), Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 8687/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

failed to strike off or specify the limb under which the charge of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been levied i.e. Concealment of Income OR Inaccurate particulars of Income. The Appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. Ground No.1

Shyam Sunder, Gururgam vs. ITO ( Circle 4(1), Gurgram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4779/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 54F

income, and the total assessed income was determined accordingly. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings separately under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and under section 271F for failure to file the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. 4. Against the order

Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 82/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

appellant submits that the return of income u/s. 139(1) could not be filed due to personal problems and there was no deliberate concealment of income, therefore, no penalty should be levied. Considering the above explanation, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty

Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

appellant submits that the return of income u/s. 139(1) could not be filed due to personal problems and there was no deliberate concealment of income, therefore, no penalty should be levied. Considering the above explanation, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty

Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 80/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

appellant submits that the return of income u/s. 139(1) could not be filed due to personal problems and there was no deliberate concealment of income, therefore, no penalty should be levied. Considering the above explanation, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty

Valsan Chiyyabath, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 28/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

appellant submits that the return of income u/s. 139(1) could not be filed due to personal problems and there was no deliberate concealment of income, therefore, no penalty should be levied. Considering the above explanation, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty

Jayantibhai Chimanbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

In the result, The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 167/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Diesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)

cost at RS. 1,57,14,767/-. A penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) have also been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particular and concealment of income. The assessment was completed on total income of Rs 1,05,67,337/- with an addition of Rs. 1,03,76,967/- on account

Sidhi Vinayak Metcom Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed

ITA 79/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysidhi Vinayak Metcom Limited, A.C.I.T., C-2, 2Nd Floor, Basant Jamini Road, Jamshedpur. Vs. Contractors Area, Bistupur-831001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaics 3599 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271ASection 274

under the subs-section was ever specified in the assessment order. The extract thereof is as under: [Penalty u/s 271AAB Is Initiated for concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 5,50,06,383/-) Rather the assessment order suggested that the penalty was initiated for "concealment" of Income when

Pravin Vasant Mehta, Mumbai vs. Circle41(4)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 9024/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

considered view, the very edifice of penalty under section 271(1)(c) collapses in the absence of any cogent material demonstrating either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The estimation of gross profit, howsoever justified for quantum purposes, cannot ipso facto lead to penalty, as it remains within

Narayan Barter Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2572/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

taxable at the rate of 30% u/s 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for concealment of income of ₹81,50,000/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the observation

Bhanushankar Kasalshibhai Dave, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(6), Surat

ITA 1331/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Mar 2026AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, BENCH [Conducted through Hybrid mode at Ahmedabad Bench] BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

Mahesh Vishindas Chandwani, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 29(2), Mumbai

In the result the Ground No

ITA 6777/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjpe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

total income of the assessee treating it as unexplained advances. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is initiated for concealment of income”. 9. The Ld. DR argued and stands in favor of the order of revenue authorities. 10. In our considered view, the assessee

Akshit Mahesh Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6052/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

issue in hand, we hereby reproduce the relevant provision for ease of reference: “1 [271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. — (1) If the 2 [Assessing Officer] or the ( ***) [Joint Commissioner (Appeals)] or the [Commissioner (Appeals)] or the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] in the course

Shri Ajay Mayor, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

invoking provision/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring submission of the appellant that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which leads to invocation of penalty. 2. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that ld. AO failed to record proper satisfaction as to penalty ... concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and without proper satisfaction penalty order required to be quashed. It be so held now. 3. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that amount received on dissolution of trust is capital receipt whereas it is treated as revenue in nature

Dazzler Confectionery Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(1, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8411/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

Assessment Order, also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the income. 3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notice dated 28.03.2016 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for the following limb/charges:  Has concealed the particulars ... particulars of income meaning thereby without specifying any specific charge/limb. The AO further vide penalty order, ultimately levied the penalty under consideration for concealment of income OR furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which goes to show that the AO while levying penalty was also confused and/or unclear qua limb/charge

ITO, Ward- 2(5), Dehradun vs. Uttrakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3023/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 158ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Dawat E Islami Ap, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1575/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1575/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dawat E Islami Ap, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Exemption Ward-1(1), Pan: Aabtd5383Q Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ca (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Dawat E Islami Ap, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25/07/2025 For The A.Y.2015-16. Dawat E Islami Ap Vs. Ito

Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

Thus, the notice does not specify whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for Page 4 of 10 Dawat E Islami AP vs. ITO concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We further find that an identical issue has been adjudicated by this Tribunal in para

Kuruzu Russelian, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied u/s

ITA 2830/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

accepting the returned income. Simultaneously, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the same date for alleged concealment of income. 6. The AO observed that the assessee had not filed the return of income voluntarily within the prescribed time and had filed the return only ... 2830/Chny/2025 AO levied a penalty of Rs.48,29,183/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 29.09.2023 for concealment of income. 7. Aggrieved by the penalty order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). It is noted that there was a delay

Sumanto Paul, Delhi vs. The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 8755/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2016-17 Sumanto Paul, Vs The Assessing Officer, 139, Kohat Enclave, Assessment Unit, Pitampur, Income Tax Department, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan: Aajpp4082C

For Appellant: Ms Shruti Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.01.2024 for the year under consideration though issued, no notice has been issued alleging either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income made by the assessee which is mandatory failing which the entire proceedings is 2 vitiated and, thus, liable

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Dehradun, Subhash Road Dehradun vs. State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd., I.T. Park, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 233/DDN/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun10 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit Vs State Infrastructure & Circle-1(1) Industrial Development Dehradun Corporation Of Uttarakhand- Uttarakhand Ltd., 29 Iie, Sahastradhara Road (It Park) Road, Haripuram, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aahcs7324R Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Pramod Verma, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Sahil Kala, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. The Claim Of The Assessee Was That It Had Suo-Motto Withdrew The Inadvertent Amount Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80Ia Of The Act However, The Ao Has Levied The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By Ao Which Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). 3. Ld. Cit (A) By Observing That Under Identical Circumstances, Penalty Levied For Ay 2011-12 Was Deleted By His Predecessor. Since The Ld. Cit(A) Has Followed The Order For Ay 2011-12 Wherein Penalty Levied Under Identical Circumstances, Was Deleted Which Facts Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. The Relevant Observation Of Ld. Cit(A) While Deleting The Penalty Are Reproduced As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40ASection 801ASection 80I

made by AO in assessment order and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6.2 AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income on part of the assessee for a sum of Rs.5,76,34,588/- (Rs. 5,74,49,588/-excess claimed u/s 801A