← 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

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 171/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

held that none of the provisions under Chapter XIV-B mandates, for making block assessment there shall be evidence regarding the concealment of income for DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers every year for the block period. Though technically one is not concerned with the block assessment, based on the information

Shri Kuldip Singh S/O Shri Parkash Singh, Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahar

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

ITA 374/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

source of the cash deposit being investment of third parties in M/s Bajaj Allianz. Thus, it is apparently clear that there was no concealment of income by the appellant assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the order of ld. CIT(A) is infirm and perverse to the facts on the record

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. Subhash Pd. Yadav, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 275

challan accordingly. Penalty proceedings 2 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Subhash Pd. Yadav under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for concealment of income”. 5. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter imposed a penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty order is a very brief ... perusal of the assessment orders, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. In this group the search was conducted on 23.02.2018 and during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has accepted the total income

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Trade and Capital Venture Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3211/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3038/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3037/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3036/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3035/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3034/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3033/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Maneken Keshvalla Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Delhi

ITA 1107/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maneken Keshvalla Patel, National Faceless Appeal 1 Manekkunj, Anandpur Vas Centre (Nfac) Vs. At Pundhara Ta : Mansa- Income Tax Department, 382855 Gandhiangar, Gujarat Ministry Of Finance, India-382855 Delhi-110001. Pan No. Alfpp 7410 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Talera, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Talera, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for concealment of income. Thus the total income of the assessee for the year under reference is computed as under: Total Returned Income : Rs.7,50,250/- Add : Unexplained

Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai Bhavani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-32(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 75/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.75/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai बिधम/ Ito, Ward-32(3)(3) Bhavani Room No. 105, C-Wing, Vs. 1St Floor, Kautilya D-103 D-103, Amozan Park Ii Devki Nagar Link Road, Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Borivali-West-400103. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agupb5616P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi (Amicus Curiae) Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.12.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. Grounds Raised By Assessee Are As Under: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Wrongly Holding That Service Tax Is Liable To Be Included In The Turnover For The Purpose Of Tax Audit Which Is Against The Definition Of Turnover As Per Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India Guidelines. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Adding An Amount Of Rs.8,31,631/- By Adopting Arbitrary Rate Of Net Profit @ 15% While Computing Income As Per Normal Provisions Of The Act & Wrongly Holding That The Appellant Is Outside The Purview Of Section 44Ad & The Cit(A) Erred In Partly Confirming The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (Amicus Curiae)For Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 234ASection 274Section 28Section 30Section 44A

business income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. Penalty is also initiated u/s.274 r.w.s. 271B for not audited books of accounts.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Arun I. Keswani, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 727/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 are initiated separately for concealment of income / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) where similar submissions were made by the assessee

Uttaranchal Estates P.Ltd, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 9489/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri M. Baranwal, Anuj Garg
Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

facts and in laws, the Ld. AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income.” 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Income

Sh. Arashpreet Singh. S/O.Late.Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax .Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 64/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 63/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Cercle- II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 62/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment

Sh. Arspreet Singh . S/O. Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle .II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 61/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Shri Mukatsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 60/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment

Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Mukatsar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 59/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment