“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

Shahnawaz, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-34(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1909/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1908/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1909/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Shah Nawaz, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-93, New Seelamur Market, Ward-34(3), New Delhi-110053 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aespn3071L Assessee By : Sh. Adil Mahmood, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Meenakshi Dohore, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Adil Mahmood, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohore, Addl. CIT

Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Shahnawaz, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1908/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Adil Mahmood, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohore, Addl. CIT

Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Mr. Jagmohan Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 559/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2011-12

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

read with 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying any particular limb of the penalty and finally imposed the penalty for concealment of income of Rs.23,37,500/- only, on account of unsecured loans. The Assessee challenged the Imposition of penalty mainly on the basis of notice itself, therefore ... Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts

Santosh Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO, WD.1, Alwar

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

ITA 5/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 5/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 Smt. Santosh Yadav Ward-2, Jilani Mata Ke Pass, Behror, Distt. Alwar cuke Vs. The ITO Ward-1 (1), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABSPY 9983 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vikas Yadav jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR alquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ D

For Appellant: Shri Vikas YadavFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR a

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

deleting the appropriate clause under which the penalty is proposed to be imposed is either for filing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and as such the notice is not sustainable and not curable. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi has not considered the land mark decision

Pradeep Chauhan, Sonipat vs. ITO Ward - 3, Sonipat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7313/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

short 'the Act'). In the assessment, there was no cooperation by assessee. Several notices were issued, which remained uncomplied. Apart from addition of concealment of income for Rs.23,51,300/-, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of notice

Sunil Bagga, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(3), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 6068/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ld.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), there is no indication that the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, assessee placed reliance on the decision of CIT vs. SSA Emerald Meadows and CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory

Smt. Amina Anvar, Kollam vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Alappuzha

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

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

I.T.Act, 1961 is void ab intitio deserves to be quashed as no satisfaction was recorded with reference to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, 4. Unless any positive concealment is found no penalty is leviable on basis of addition made on estimate. 5. The addition ... initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is 6 Smt. Amina Anvar concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of total income under clause (c). Concealment, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are different. Thus the Assessing Officer while issuing notice

Ashvin Narayan Bajoria HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 369/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

return of assessee was accepted without any variation. The Ld.AR for the assessee submits that there 4 Ashvin Narayan Bajoria (HUF) was no concealment of income furnished so far as income offered in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has no occasion ... hold that assessee concealed his income in his return in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Such return is to be considered as return of income filed under section 139(1) for the purpose of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) and penalty

M/S Ambitious Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Rajkot-Gujarat

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 123/RJT/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Royिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/S. Ambitious Finance & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ward- 2(4), 107, Kapad Market, Para Bazar, Rajkot Rajkot Pan : Aabca 8076 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Written Submission Revenue By : Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 234BSection 250

treated as unexplained u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 9. Noting the above findings of the Assessing Officer and also the fact that before the learned CIT(A) no contentions were made

Nirmalaben Jaswantsinh Rathod, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-5, Vapi

In the result, the original grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) to the tune of Rs. 3,01,600/- levied by the ld. Assessing Officer. The appellant has neither concealed any income nor submitted any inaccurate particulars of income. 2. On appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and law, the learned CIT(A) NFAC ... erred in imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without a specific finding of fact as to whether the appellant has concealed any income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income is contrary to law and hence deserves to be deleted. “3. The appellant craves leave

Nirmalaben Jaswantsinh Rathod, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-5, Vapi

In the result, the original grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 131/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

under the point which is intended towards proposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the word OR has been used between the charge of concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. These facts and circumstances make it abundantly clear that in the case of assessee, penalty notice is completely ... which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the penalty proceedings has been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5.1. It is pertinent to note that in the notice, AO has not clearly mentioned the limb

Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1536/DEL/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR

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

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 ... Jurisdictional High Court, since the AO has not been specified u/s 274 as to whether penalty is proposed for alleged ‘concealment of income’ OR ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income’, the penalty levied is hereby obliterated. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced

Ramjilal Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4736/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR

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

read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide notice dated 20.03.2015 for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income at the time of passing of the order u/s 143(3) on issues addition on account of under valuation of stock.” 6. On this issue ... 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

Nuray Realtech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 18(4), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for

ITA 7275/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ld. Ao & Ld. Cit(A). Thus, The Additions Made By Ao Are Erroneous & Bad In Law.

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

case and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) on account of above disallowance treating the same as concealment of income is unwarranted and must be quashed. That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. That the appellant reserves its right

Shriamit Agrawal, Indore vs. The ITO Ward 1(3), Indore

ITA 212/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Amit Agrawal Ito, Ward-1(3) बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abrpa 2105 L Assessee By Shri S. N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

appellant was reopened in absence of any tangible material and live link Page 1 of 8 Amit Agrawal Assessment year 2009-10 of concealment of income and merely on the basis of borrowed opinion without independent application of mind. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

K World Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2523/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Sachdev, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Ld. CIT/DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts

Thakur Dass, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 36(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6765/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmathakur Dass (Since Deceased) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Karan Ward-36(2), Harjani, C-41, New Subzi New Delhi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcs4481E

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

defective as the same does not disclose as to why penalty proceedings were initiated i.e. for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The ld counsel relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in Ganga Iron and Steel Trading Co. Vs. CIT (2022) 135 taxmamn.com 244 (Bombay ... makes it apparent that the ld AO had failed to distinguish and inform the Assessee as to it the notice was issued for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars and a proforma in a mechanical manner the notice was issued. The judgment relied by the ld counsel

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Bently Nevada Llc, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5063/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bently Nevada Llc Circle -1(1)(2), (Earlier Known As Bentley International Taxation, Nevada Inc.), 6Th Floor, New Delhi Building 7A, Standard Chartered Building, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon Pan :Aadcb8118J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

profit to the PE, the Assessing Officer initiated proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed an order imposing penalty of Rs.52,43,531/- under section ... cannot be a matter of course, as sought to be contended by the Revenue. It can only be levied in cases where the concealment of income has been proven. If the quantum order itself has been challenged and this Court has framed substantial questions of law in the appeal preferred

Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6249/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

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

notice received by the assessee from the AO wherein the specific limb has not been identified as to whether the charge is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue stands squarely covered in favour ... notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) is omnibus notice without specifying the specific charge upon the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the order of the jurisdictional High Court