“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

Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Centre Circle - 18, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1046/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the penalty u/s of Rs.13,38,42,423/-on concealment of income of 39,37,70,000/- U/s 68 of the income tax Act 1961, which was received as advance against for property. 4. That

Synergy Art Foundation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6598/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishm/S. Synergy Art Foundation Ltd. Dcit, Circle 8(2)(1) 3Rd Pasta Lane, 8/9, Colaba, Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Mumbai-400 005 Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aabcs 7467 F (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. Prabhakar – Ca Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 13.08.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Confirming The Penalty Imposed Of Rs.8,44,632/- U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In The Business Of Selling Artworks & Paintings. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return On 30.09.2012, Declaring Loss Of Rs.34,84,139/-.

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar – CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)

assessee furnished its explanation, objecting to imposition of penalty, however, the A.O. passed an order imposing penalty of Rs.8,44,632/-, alleging concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Challenging the imposition of penalty, though, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate

Inu Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Hybrid Hearing) Inu Exports Private Limited Ito, 12(2)(2), Mumbai Room No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar Office No. 33, Shrinaman Plaza, Vs Behind Shoppers Stop Kandivali, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400067. Mumbai – 400020. [Pan: Aaaci 6806 M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)Section 270Section 270ASection 274

High Courts and Tribunal, wherein it was held that mere treatment of business loss as speculative loss will not automatically warrant inference of concealment of income. To support his submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions;  CIT Vs Bhartesh Jain (2010) 323 ITR 358 (Delhi ... High Court held that mere treatment of business loss as speculation loss by AO did not automatically warrant inference of concealment of income. It was also held that there was nothing on record to show that in furnishing its return of income, the assessee either concealed its income

Raees Alam Siddiqui, Ghazipur vs. Dy. C.I.T., Range - 1, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

were not found inaccurate and 3 Raees Alam Siddiqui A.Y. 2015-16 there was no allegation by the Revenue that the assessee had concealed any income in his return, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed simply on account of addition made ... rate of 10% and not recorded any findings in the assessment order that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or had concealed the income, it was a case of an estimate against an estimate and therefore, no penalty was leviable in such a case where additions were based

Pallavi Kamal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6317/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Pallavi Kamal Shah Ito, Ward-30(1)(1), Mumbai A-601, Bhimsen Chs Ltd., Marve Vs Maharashtra-400051. Road, Malad West, Maharashtra - 400064. [Pan: Avops7447Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 124Section 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xiv)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

unexplained share trading and added under section 69A. The assessing officer initiated penalty under section 271F, penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income as well as penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non- compliance of various notices. 3. Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee filed additions

Ipf Vikram India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1204/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

interest was charged under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated for concealment of income. 8. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. R Mehta & Co, Mumbai

ITA 5301/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 690

profit declared by the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for concealment of income. 10. Subject to the above remarks, the total income of the assessee is computed as under SN Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Total income

Shri Sanjay Haresh Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeds in the present appeal

ITA 4751/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Haresh The Income Tax Officer, Mulchandani Ward, 19 (3) (1), 4-C Ajanta Apartments, M L Vs. Piramal Chamber, Dhanukar Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400013. Mumbai – 40026 Pan – Aadpm 3393 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin Khinchi, Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Along With His Uncle Had Purchased A Flat In Iscon Platinum, Ahmedabad On A Consideration Of Rs. 59,30,000/- Through Cheques. Subsequently, Search Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing, In The Case Of Jp Iscon

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin KhinchiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

added to the total income u/s. 69 of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act are initiated separately for concealment of Income. (Addition: Rs.19,65,150/-) 4. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed appeal with Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed

Salim, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5816/DEL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

total income of the assessee was thus assessed at Rs.1,82,46,780/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated for concealment of income, penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(b) was issued for non-compliance, and interest under sections 234A and 234B

Gaddam Mohan Reddy, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nizamabad

ITA 1685/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 28/09/2022 imposed the penalty for concealment of income of Rs.5,03,585/- upon the assessee, i.e., with respect to the wrong claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act of Rs.16 ... therefore, he ought not to have been visited with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income for the aforesaid inadvertent error. The Ld. AR to support his contention had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Shri Digamber Jain Yuvak Sangh, Indore, M.P vs. The NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 566/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Agrawal C.A.& Shri Pankaj Mogra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

reopening was done in absence of any tangible Shri Digamber Jain Yuvak Sangh vs. NFAC A.Y. 2013-14 material and live link of concealment of income and merely for verification of source of cash deposits in the bank account. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Surya Jyoti Software Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2219/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 206, Hans Bhawan, Ward 24(1), 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Delhi New Delhi – 1100 02 Pan :Aalcs5682G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

facts, equity and natural justice and therefore the order passed by Ld. AO is to be quashed. 3. There is no concealment of income as assessee company had received back the loan granted to M/s Shalini Holdings Limited and the addition made has been deleted by Hon'ble ITAT vide ... 4740/Del/2019. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no concealment of income as the assessee had received back the loan granted to M/s. Shalini Holdings Ltd. and the addition was deleted by Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolhapur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2175/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

Assessing Officer vide order dated 26.06.2024 imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs.68,32,010/- for concealment of income of Rs.2,02,97,115/- on account of sale of sugar at concessional rates to members. 8. Being aggrieved with the above penalty order dated ... addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- was made on the basis of information provided by the assessee only. Therefore, the assessee neither concealed its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Apart from above, Ld. AR also submitted that since the issue of addition of Rs.2

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolhapur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2174/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolhapur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2173/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolhapur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2172/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolhapur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2171/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolhapur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2170/PUN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Shirol vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolhapur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2169/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Cit – Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Visakhapatnam Gvmc Room No.204 Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam – 530002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

void ab initio, as the notice issued under the said section is vague and fails to specify whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's specific legal ground challenging the validity ... even after revision u/s 263. Having accepted the claim on identical facts, the Assessing Officer cannot now turn around and allege concealment of income of the interest paid to APIIC for the purpose of penalty in the impugned year. 5. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that where