“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

M. R. Sivakumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 963/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.963/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri M.R. Sivakumar Acit Old No.480 New No.3/480 Non-Corporate Circle-7(1) बनाम 2Nd Avenue, 4Th Sector, Chennai-34. / Vs. West Anna Nagar Extension, Chennai-600 101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Azhps-2774-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 29-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

which worked out to be Rs.41.70 Lacs. The assessee accepted the disallowance. However, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and issued notice u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) on 27-12-2019. Though the assessee assailed imposition of penalty, Ld.AO alleged that there ... India) Ltd. Vs.CIT (1966) 59 ITR 499, Ld. AO held that there was 3 deliberate intention on the part of the assessee to conceal his income as he had paid a majority portion of legal charges in cash. Accordingly, Ld.AO levied impugned penalty of Rs.12.51 Lacs which was confirmed

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It) - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, by allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee for all these four years, the draft assessment orders for those years are quashed and appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3235/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla/ Pratik Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 156Section 254

under ITA Nos.3232, 3233, 3234 & 3235/Mum/2018 Marriott International Inc; A.Ys. 06-07 to 09-10 section 271 (1) © is also initiated for the concealment of income in not reporting the receipts. In view of this we do not find any reason to not to follow the decision of the honourable

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, by allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee for all these four years, the draft assessment orders for those years are quashed and appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3234/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla/ Pratik Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 156Section 254

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, by allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee for all these four years, the draft assessment orders for those years are quashed and appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3233/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla/ Pratik Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 156Section 254

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, by allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee for all these four years, the draft assessment orders for those years are quashed and appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3232/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla/ Pratik Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 156Section 254

Schott Glass India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

ITA 7356/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mahesh Jiwade

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

computation the Profit Level Indicator of the appellant. 4. The LD. AO/LD. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the appellant had neither concealed any income nor had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The LD. AO/LD. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that: i. The appellant has acted ... head note is reproduced as under:- “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Recording of satisfaction) - Whether where assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section

Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

ITA 2594/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mahesh Jiwade

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle (1), Thane

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

ITA 2845/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle (1) 5Th Floor, High Street Cum Highland Thane Corporate Centre, Kapurbawadi, Vs. Thane-400 607

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Choughule

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroffv. Jt. CIT [2007] 6 SCC 329, this Court explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c), mens ... Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt

Meka Ranganayakamma, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 119/VIZ/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50GSection 54G

determining the total income at Rs. 15,63,290/-. Further, penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for concealment of income. Against the addition made by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Vijayawada who rejected the appeal ... issues at length vide para 4.2 & 5 of the penalty order dated 01/02/2022 and came to a conclusion that the assessee has concealed the income to the tune of Rs. 15,63,290/- within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty

ACIT, CC-14, Delhi vs. Lakshya Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 181/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT- DR

Section 153ASection 253Section 5

assessee are added to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 27I (i)(c) of the Income Tax Ad is initiated for-concealment of income and for furnishing or inaccurate particulars [Rs. 9,78,00,000/- income from unexplained sources]” 13. A perusal of the above clearly shows that

Radhe Developers (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Radhe Developers (India) Ltd. Acit, Cir.3(1)(2) 1St Floor, Chunibhai Chamber Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. City Gold Cinema Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacr 9177 L

For Respondent: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has to give a clear finding as to whether the case is that of concealment of income or that of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of such specific finding, the penalty order was bad in law. iii) In the facts

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 999/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Bangalore Page 2 of 10 not in accordance with law since it did not specify with regard to the default whether it is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. First, we deal with the validity of notice issued u/s 274 of the Act, wherein irrelevant portion ... quantified at Rs.4,65,688/- and assessment completed ex-parte. However, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and a penalty of Rs.2,87,800/-was imposed. Against this assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the order

Sri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 998/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1144/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1002/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 27.12.2018 is not in accordance with law since it did not specify with regard to the default whether it is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. First, we deal with the validity of notice issued u/s 274 of the Act, wherein irrelevant portion ... quantified at Rs.4,65,688/- and assessment completed ex-parte. However, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and a penalty of Rs.2,87,800/-was imposed. Against this assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the order

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1001/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1000/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shahrukhkhan Sharfarazkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 436/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69

assessee for the year under consideration u/s 69 of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated on this issue for concealment of income. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that as the assessee could not file the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer as well as before

Swapan Chandra Mandal, Purulia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(3), Purulia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 131/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Swapan Chandra Mandal,.......................Appellant Village & P.O. Chelyama, District- Purulia-723145 [Pan: Akepm1916H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(3), Purulia, I.T. Office Building, South Lake Road, Purulia-723101 Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 11, 2024 O R D E R

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

added back to the total income. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated on this issue for concealment of income 3. On perusal of bank account details of OBI bearing account No. 0707010103140 it was found that there is a closing balance of cash in hand is Rs.24 ... u/s.68 of the IT Act 1961 and added back to the total income. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated on this issue for concealment of income. . 4. Copy of order, penalty notice and demand notice is issued to the assessee. Copy of calculation sheet is attached herewith. Rajesh Kumar, Ward

Yudo Hot Runners India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi Present Juridiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

Court’s decision which was in favour of the assessee and, therefore, the issue was debatable at that stage, thus there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the penalty under Section 271(10(c) of the Act should ... under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the invocation of the same is either that of filing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income or both the limbs are present in respect of assessee’s return of income before the Assessing Officer. But, in the present case