“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

Hari Narain Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 273/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271A

plays a vital role before imposing the penalty, it is always compulsory to prove the mens-rea of the assessee as malafide for concealment of income or for avoidance of any provision of law in force intentionally. In the case of the assessee, the AO has not mentioned anything

Bitthal Das Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 272/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271A

Torane Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Palghar vs. ITO, Ward 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2385/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Torane Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. V. Ito, Ward 15(3)(1), Survey No.5/2,5/3, 6 & 7, Mumbai Village Torane Taluka Wada, Palghar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aacct9196K Assessee By: Shri Kumar Kale Revenue By: Shri P.D. Chougule, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 2.11.2023 Date Of : 3.11.2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Learned Assessing Officer was not sure while issuing the show cause notice whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee has concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. If without being so sure about the charge on which he intends to impose penalty

Sri Harikuttan T, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Alleppey

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

default cannot be an explanation for another violation of law, i.e., not reporting income truly and correctly. It is a clear case of concealment of income. The evasion of tax being patent, it does not therefore lie in the assessee’s mouth to say that there is no misreporting

Prakash Davara, Raipur vs. Assistant Coimmissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 177/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: S/shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

erred in passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the I.T. Act, on the premise that there is escapement of income & concealment of income whereas no income has escaped assessment u/s 143(3) r.w order u/s 147 dt. 21.02.2014 as same is upheld vide order ... reopening of the case and passing the impugned order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 when there is no escapement of income or concealment of income. Hence, order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 is bad in law, against law of natural justice and uncalled for and may kindly be annulled

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Mumbai vs. CIT Appeals, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

same (Rs 30 Lakhs); and initiated in the assessment order dated 27.03.2015, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for “concealment of income”. 4. In the statutory appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the quantum addition as noted (supra), the assessee only challenged the decision ... account of cash deposit. 5. Meanwhile, the AO had initiated the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for “concealment of income” on account of addition made of Rs.30 Lakhs i.e. non-refundable deposit for entering into Joint Venture (JV) as well as regarding the addition made

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2463/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2462/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Income Tax Officer-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankita Reality and Development Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. EktaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

order dated 24.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for “concealment of income” dated 24.03.2022. Thereafter, the AO notes that he again issued notices on 03.08.2022 and 16.08.2022; and that he considered the assessee’s reply that ... filing the return of income within time, which omission should not be taken adversely against the assessee for levying penalty alleging concealment of income, when the fact remains that there is no concealment of income whatsoever. However, the AO rejected the plea of the assessee and levied penalty for concealment

Qamar Afzal Talat, Dubai vs. ITO Ward 28(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 926/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271F

raised against assesse. 6. That the Ld. Assessing officer erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) as there was no concealment of income by assesse because the sale of property never completed and income never accrued to assessee. 7. That the Ld. Assessing officer erred in initiating

Ginni Gold Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Anup Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-remittance of TDS is only a technical default and there is no concealment of income I.T.A. No. 564/Del/2022 or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs. LG Chaudhary ... disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee has disclosed the entire facts before the authorities below without concealing any income. The assessee made a claim of deduction in the return of income and explained the facts but the same were not accepted

Telmos Electronics, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-5, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2807/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Years : 2015-16] Telmos Electronics, Vs Ito, Jindal Chowk, Model Town, Hisar, Ward-5, Haryana-125005. Hisar. Pan-Aacft1673L Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Telmos Electronics, Vs Jcit, Jindal Chowk, Model Town, Hisar, Hisar. Haryana-125005. Pan-Aacft1673L Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : Both Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A), Hisar Both Dated 31.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2010-11. The Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 40A(3)Section 68

Rajbir Singh. (vi) Interest of Rs. 14878/- disallowed wrongly in account of Raj Rani. On Ground No. 7 of Appeal: 8 Regarding concealment of income vis-à-vis Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act) That finally the A.O. below JCIT Hisar range Hisar was absolutely wrong in opining

Telmos Electronics, Haryana vs. JCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2655/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Section 40A(3)Section 68

Ratnashri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

ITA 1607/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 141(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated separately as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income resulting in concealment of income. [Addition of Rs.62,50,000/-]” 1607/Del/2019 3. As assessee went in appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has taken up the appeal of assessee along with 58 other appeals

Amit Ashok Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO-2(2), Indore

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

ITA 210/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271A

bank account as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of IT Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment of income.” 5.1. Thus, the AO made the addition on account of cash deposit of Rs.10,33,000/- in the saving bank account with CITI Bank, Indore ... same is assessed as business income of the assessee from undisclosed business. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment of income, u/s 271A for failure to maintain books of Page 12 of 19 ITA No.209 & 210/Ind/2023 Amit Ashok Agrawal Page 13 of 19 accounts, documents

Amit Ashok Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO-2(2), Indore

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

ITA 209/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271A

Ms. Bela Nipun Mehta, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal against the penalty confirmed by the learned CIT – A are allowed

ITA 2378/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Acit 19 (1) , Mumbai Ms. Bela Nipun Mehta M. K. Road, New Marine B=-121, Grand Paradi, August Lines, Churchgate, Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, Vs. Mumbai-400036 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpm4988Q

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Hirawat ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha SR

Section 147Section 271Section 35

case, the assessee submitted a six-page paper book submitting that there is neither a furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty should not have been levied. 08. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that when the donor itself has indulged in giving ... bogus, the name of the assessee is mentioned in a bogus donor’s list, how one can say that assessee has not concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It was further stated that revenue does not agree with the order of the ITAT in 2604/M/2019

Arun Ramkrishna Patil, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm.of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Thane

ITA 2204/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle – 1, Arun R Patil Thane Waddle Building First Ashar It Park Sixth Floor, Floor Raw Number 16 Z Vs. Near Dns Bank Manpower Wagle Industrial Estate Road Dombivali East Thane Maharashtra 400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpm4988Q

For Appellant: Shri N A Kulkarni ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha SR DR

Section 143Section 271Section 274Section 68

submitted that show cause notice dated 25/12/2017 issued by the learned assessing officer did not strike any of the twin charges of either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income and therefore the levy of the penalty deserves to be quashed on this point itself

Vivaan Infotel Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5549/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 217(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

appellant is rejected. 5.6 The provisions of S. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act makes it apply clear that when there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, there needs to be a penalty under this provisions. In the present case, the failure of the appellant ... query so raised by the AR and genuineness of the purchases so made makes it a case, fit to be called as concealment of income, thereby making it eligible for the levy of penalty under Sec 271(1)(c). 5.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union

Janakkumar Mukundprasad Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Bardoli, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

No.293 & 294/SRT/2013 dated 13.04.202. 7. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that Assessing Officer initiated penalty on account of concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income i.e., on both the limbs. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the ITA.418/SRT/2023 AY.14-15 ... Janakkumar M Patel Act, wherein both the limbs have been stated, that is, ‘concealment of income’ or ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. Therefore Ld. Counsel contended that without invoking Explanation-1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty should not have been levied on both the limbs