“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

Harivadanbhai Maganlal Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(7), Surat

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

ITA 30/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

business activities and are uneducated persons. It was further stated by the assessee that there is no intention of the assessee to conceal the income but due to lack of knowledge of the laws, the same was not shown. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee's arguments have no force ... completed the valuation proceedings of both the properties. Further, ignorance of law is not an excuse for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. It is clear from the above that the assessee has deliberately avoided one property while computing taxable income to reduce the tax liability and again

Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Maharashtra vs. ITO Wasrd-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income.” 11. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the issue has been discussed and examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order, dated

Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Golden Square Chs Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-22 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assesee are allowed

ITA 572/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 572 & 573/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Golden Square Chsltd., Vs. Ito – 22(1)(5),Roomno. Cst Road, Sunder Nagar 323,3Rdfloor,Piramal Kalina, Santicruz (E) Chamber,Lalbaug, Mumbai. 400098 Parel, Mumbai.400012 Pan/Gir No. : Aaaag2527M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Kunal Lunawat & Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Chandekar.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Lunawat, &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Other Sources. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. Further, since the assessee has failed to furnish return of income before the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. AY2014-15thereforepenalty proceedings

Nirmal Uppal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1955/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1954/Del/2022, A.Y. 2016-17 Ita No. 1955/Del/2022, A.Y. 2016-17 Smt. Nirmal Uppal Vs. Dcit, House No. 25, Sector-28, Central Circle-7 Faridabad New Delhi Pan : Aaqpu3784P

Section 132(4)Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

facts ignoring that the Ld.AO grossly erred in treating the “change in the taxable treatment of the declared transaction” as concealment of income and wrongly imposed the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act. 4. That Ld. CIT (Appeal) grossly erred both in law and facts that

Nirmal Uppal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1954/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2016-17

Section 132(4)Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

Bhanwari Devi, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

against Rs. 20,00,000/- claimed by AO and the source of investment is fully verifiable. Therefore, there is no concealment of income on part of the assessee and therefore the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal and void. 7 Smt. Bhanwari Devi, Alwar. CIT (A) observation

Seaward Exports Private Limited, Kota vs. DCIT-Circle 2, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

Therefore, the difference comes to meager amount of Rs.698/- of tax and this error is genuine one which should not be treated as concealed of income by the AO. The ld. AR further apprised that assessee with a taxable income of Rs.89,34,449/- and with a total tax payment ... have any intention to save meager amount of tax of Rs.698/- and this act of error of omission does not amount to concealment of income and attract penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act.. In this connection, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon following case

Gautam Puranmal Poddar, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 584/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

particular of limb the Assessing Officer. On the issue of specifying particular of limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. concealment of income or of the Act i.e. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ... language in the notice for non in the notice for non-striking off of ‘inaccurate striking off of ‘inaccurate particular’ or marking on ‘concealment of income’ particular’ or marking on ‘concealment of income’ particular’ or marking on ‘concealment of income’ portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice. Entire portion cannot

Gautam Puranmal Poddar, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 583/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

M/S Paradise Multiplex Cum Villas. Pvt. Ltd, Abohar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-II(3), Abohar

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 138/ASR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

notice u/s 148 of the IT. Act, 1961.” 5.2 The ld. DR again placed that the recorded reason is specifically mentioned, the concealment of income and there is no such any illegality in the recorded reason.So, the ground related to jurisdiction u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. I.T.A. No.628/Asr/2018

M/S Paradies Multiplexs Cum Villas Pvt Ltd, Abhoar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Abohar

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 628/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

Kanpur Fertilizers & Cement Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6671/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediac.O.No.-37/Del/2020 [In Ita No.6671/Del/2019] [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Kanpur Fertilizers & Cement Ltd., Circle-2, Sector-128, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201304. Pan-Aadck9974B Appellant Respondent

levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the twin ground that the assessee has concealed its income and also furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty ... without appreciating that on the facts and law involved the assessee has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income. 3. That the assessment of interest income of Rs. 1,93,75,902/- on temporary FDRs out of project specific funds during construction period as income

Shri Sanjaykumar Babulal Jain, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-6(3), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjaykumar Babulal Jain, Dcit, Cc-6(3), 28, Kewal Industries Estate, Sb 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aefpj 7802 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Karan Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Karan Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.S. Sant, DR

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

Assessing Officer has not specified whether the penalty has the Assessing Officer has not specified whether the penalty has been initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing been initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing been initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars

Babita Khurana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3218/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

returns of income filed in pursuance to notices issued u/s. 153A of the Act, it cannot be automatically concluded that the Assessee has concealed her income or furnished inaccurate particulars of her income. He submitted, in the assessment order, Assessing Officer has not referred to any incriminating material found during ... search and seizure operation indicating concealment of income by the Assessee. He submitted, since there was nothing adverse against the Assessee, the Assessing Officer accepted the income declared in the revised returns of income. Thus, he submitted, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Finally, he submitted

Babita Khurana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3217/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 2738/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)

finding the same to be incorrect does not arise, i.e., there is no question of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income as contemplated in sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. What has happened in this year is that the additional claim made through a letter

Lord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 424/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

For Appellant: M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Dr. Samual Pitta

Section 40

initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.2 The learned ACIT/DRP erred in not appreciating that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant for penalty proceedings to be initiated in this regard. 6. The Appellant submits that

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. M/S Manglam Build Developers Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 373/JPR/2022[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2023

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 133ASection 14A

conducted on3-09-2013 as cash payment out of books is added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings for concealment of income are also initiated separately in respect of this undisclosed investment of Rs.8,07,32,800/- in purchase of land and also for undisclosed income

Savita Bansal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8937/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajareswari R, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54FSection 68

under: “Clause 48 seeks to amend section 271 of the Income-tax Act, which relates to failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. Under the existing provisions contained in Chapter XXI the Assessing Officer is required to be satisfied during the course of penalty proceedings. Legislative