← 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

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7492/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is, that no particulars were withheld by the assessee while making adjustment. It is not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. If, the adjustment made by the assessee to arrive at adjusted operating margin are not acceptable to the TPO, it cannot be a case ... well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jagannathdas Harichandmal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh

In the result appeal of revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 106/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद

Naresh Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1262/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty despite the fact that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred ... notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy

Naresh Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1261/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty despite the fact that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred ... notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy

Naresh Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. JCIT, (OSD), Central Circle-26, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1260/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty despite the fact that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred ... notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy

Naresh Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1259/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty despite the fact that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred ... notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy

Naresh Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1258/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty despite the fact that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred ... notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy

Naresh Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1257/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty despite the fact that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred ... notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy

Smt. Jaya Mogra, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

called for an explanation from the assessee regarding the source of the deposit in the aforenoted facts a conclusion of concealment of income is inescapable. 15.3 Since, the penalty was initiated on estimated income of Rs. 21,45,000/- Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance

Jammu & Kashmir State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-II, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 249/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.249/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

specified whether the penalty is imposed for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 2. The penalty order is bad in law, as the Ld. AO is himself not clear whether the penalty is levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income ... carrying the specific limb. Therefore, this is a case where both the parts of the offences i.e., concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were involved. Finally, respectfully following the binding judicial precedents as cited aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned

Hasmukhbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Vapi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

erred in law and on facts in holding that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the income when the appellant had revised the income on his own and the reasons for reopening were completely different. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred ... reasons recorded for reopening the case. This shows that there was a deliberate attempt, on the part of the assessee, to conceal the income on capital gains and only when the escapement of income came to the notice of Income Tax Department, the assessee offered such income for taxation. Thus

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax C 2(1), Jabalpur vs. Shri Rakesh Jaishwal, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 35/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle 2(1), Vs. Shrirakeshjaiswal, Annexe Building, Bunglow No. 6, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aefpj7779E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Sanjay Seth Ca & Shri.Sachin Vajpayee, Adv.Ar Revenue By : Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,Jabalpur Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Sanjay Seth CA &For Respondent: Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69B

concealed his particulars of income, the ShriRakeshJaiswal, Jabalpur. penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, were also initiated separately for the concealment of income. 7.1.4 In the curse of appellate proceedings before me, the ld AR submitted that during the year under consideration, the appellant was a partner

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1085/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 271

appellate authority to confirm the levy. 8. We are of the considered view that initially the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings for concealment of income and while levying the penalty the AO has levied it for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. This shows that

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1084/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 271

appellate authority to confirm the levy. 8. We are of the considered view that initially the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings for concealment of income and while levying the penalty the AO has levied it for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. This shows that

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1083/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 271

appellate authority to confirm the levy. 8. We are of the considered view that initially the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings for concealment of income and while levying the penalty the AO has levied it for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. This shows that

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1082/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 271

appellate authority to confirm the levy. 8. We are of the considered view that initially the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings for concealment of income and while levying the penalty the AO has levied it for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. This shows that

ITO -34(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Manoj Dineshchandra Chitaliya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1494/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

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

penalty of ₹.62,624/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied ... purchases at 12.5% and by reducing the Gross Profit already declared by the assessee. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. Coming to the interest, the assessee furnished complete

Jt CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blejt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Central Circle – 3(1) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.164/Mum/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 498/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2007-08)] Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani V. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Central Circle – 3(1) Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bharat Kumar Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

restricted toRs.32,38,00,000/-. Penalty proceedings u.s,271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 8. Further, on perusal of the bank account no. 550011024229 in ING Vysya bank, it is seen that the assessee has deposited cash ... r.w.s. 274 Page No.30 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income.” 50. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal and challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer with detailed submissions before the Ld.CIT(A). After considering

Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 215/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 215/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel 4-502, Near Maharashtra Mandal, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Alupp3271B

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s.271(1)(c) may not be imposed on her. As the A.O in the aforesaid SCN had mentioned both the defaults, i.e., “concealment of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”, therefore, by using “OR” as a conjunction between both the defaults mentioned above, he had not only ... imposed on the assessee. In our considered view, as both of the two defaults envisaged in Sec. 271(1)(c), i.e., ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ are separate and distinct defaults that operate in their respective independent and exclusive fields; therefore, the A.O needed

Shri Tarsem Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 210/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69

Penalty I.T.A. No. 210/Asr/2023 6 Assessment Year: 2011-12 proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income are being initiated separately.” 6. We heard the submission of revenue, considered the documents available in the record and considered the orders of both