“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 Cir 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shirish M Dalvi, Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

assessee u/s 80IB(10) of Rs.3,17,76,302 stands denied. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 26. On further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) in the year under consideration has disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IB

Smt. Lizy George, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 398/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

only accepted the explanation offered by the appellant/assessee but also recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant/assessee for the assessment year 1998-1999. That now being the indisputable position, it must necessarily follow

Kundanmal Keshrimalji Dhakad, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-18(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1691/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhkundanmal Keshrimalji Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Dhakad, Shop No.14, Ward 18(2)(2), Ladivala Chambers, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Sheikh Memon Street, Mumbai – 400 007 Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aeepd9718G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sridhar Govind Menon Date Of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Hereinafter Referred To As "Nfac" Has Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte On 30 April, 2022 Ignoring The Fact That The Adjournment Request Of The Appellant Dated 25Th April, 2022 Requesting For Adjournment Till 10Th May, 2022 Was Already On Records & The Same Was Pending As On The Date Of Deciding The Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sridhar Govind Menon

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

fact that the impugned addition is based on mere conjectures and suspicions and accordingly it cannot be said that the appellant had either concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 4. Without any prejudice to any of the above Grounds, the assessing officer has erred ... total income of the assessesse and also initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of concealment of income. Thereafter the A.O has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 29.06.2017 to the amount of Rs.28,10,537/- holding

Keller Ground Engineering India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 114/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 92C

initiating penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Thereafter the AO passed final assessment order again vide dated 12.01.2016. Under such circumstances, the assessee raised additional ground, which is reproduced

P.S.Jayaraman, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 23(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2983/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Meenakshi Sundaram (Advocate )-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

department vide Tribunal’s orders. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty of Rs.39.99 Lacs was levied vide penalty order dated 30.05.2017 for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) concurred with assessee’s submissions that deduction ... details supplied by the assessee is incorrect or false, penalty could not be levied. The Ld. AO must prove that there was concealment of income or the return of income furnished by the assessee or documents submitted by assessee were based on incorrect fact, falsity and untruth. Therefore

Prompt Toys Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO -7(3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2068/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)

account of difference in gross margin earned from sale against the purchase from party alleged to be non-genuine. The assessee denies concealment of income as the addition was merely on estimate basis. 5. We find that the present case in hand pertains to the addition made on estimate basis

Dy CIT-CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Sawarmal Hisaria Through L/H Sandeep Hisaria, Mumbai

ITA 1042/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

material which is submitted before settlement commission and Assessing Officer can make the addition based on the proper evidences on concealment of income or any evidences which proves that assessee has not disclosed its proper income. In the given case, it is also fact on record that in the search

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

claimed various expenditure against the rent income received by it. 5.6. The Ld. A.R. vehemently argued that it is not a case of concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He relied on certain case laws and made a proposition that in such circumstances, there ... some cases, there can be overlapping of the two offences. In this case, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed its income. 5.8. Hon'ble Supreme Court, Three Member Bench, decided in the case of K.PMadhusudhanan Vs CIT (20O1) 251 ITR 99 (SC) as below: (a) Explanation

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, West Bengal vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumabi

In the result, the penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2089/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2089/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) Essel Mining & Industries बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ltd. 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, Building, M. K. Road, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata- Mumbai-400020. 700017. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace6607L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sukanya Jayaram Revenue By: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Dated 16.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Which Was Levied By The Ao (Concealment Of Income) In The Re- Assessment Proceedings Pursuant To A Search U/S 132 Of The Act By Framing Re-Assessment U/S 153C/143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms. Sukanya JayaramFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

against the penalty confirmed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) which was levied by the AO (concealment of income) in the re- assessment proceedings pursuant to a search u/s 132 of the Act by framing re-assessment u/s 153C/143 ... brought to our notice that the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.03.2019 was levied on the assessee for concealment of income pursuant to re-assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.03.2016. The AO levied penalty of Rs.1

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 1380/MUM/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

dated 04.12.2017 is found placed. From a perusal of the same, we note that both the faults/charges i.e. have “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income” Meaning the assessee was in the dark as to what kind of fault he has committed against which the AO proposed

De Dietrich Process Systems India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2021/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2021 & 2022/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit-19(3)(1), Mumbai De Dietrich Process Systems Aayakar Bhavan, India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 R. No. 548/549, Road No. 16, Vs. Ttc Indl. Area, Midc Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccd8576D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 13.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-16, Mumbai In Relation To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40aSection 43B

limb he intended to levy the penalty nor the relevant port has been highlighted that is whether the show cause notice is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Now this issue stands covered by the full Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Mohd

Manmohan Didwania, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is fully disallowed

ITA 4495/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalmanmohan Didwania M/S Hanuman Trading Corporation, 1-B-5 Rahul Chs, Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. Pan: Aaepd1249E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito- 30(2)(4), Room No. 609, C-13, Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 26.04.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37Section 68

regular books of accounts of the benami concerns managed and operated by the them. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment of income.” 6 ITA No. 4495 Mum 2019-Manmohan Didwania 6. The statement recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) during the course of search

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 7 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 191/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 774/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Miss. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 36Section 43B

Apex 7 Sri Rajanikanth Reddy. Court was considering the question of whether penalty can be imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income where returned losses were reduced in assessment and there was no tax payable by the assessee. Earlier, the Hon'ble Apex Court

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and the assessee Cross Objection is allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Savita Oil Of Income Tax-Cc-8(4) Technologies Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No. 66-67, 658, Aayakarbhavan, Narimanbhawan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai- 400 021 Pan No.Aaacs7934A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 271Section 271(1)Section 275Section 80I

filed reply to show cause notice on 12.02.2015 in respect to applicability of provisions of Section 271(1)C and there is no concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The AO was not satisfied with the compliance and finally, the AO has relied on the facts ... invited our attention to the finding of the Tribunal that clause (c) of Section 271 (1) relates to the various defaults as also "concealment of income", the use of word "etc" becomes redundant. The Tribunal has further considered whether the use of the disjunctive "or" 8 Savita Oil Technologies

Apco Yarn (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 7205/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act by recording that “in view of submissions of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately”. 7. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue ... goes to prove that AO has not applied his mind to work out if the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed its income so as to initiate the penal 4 M/s. Apco Yarn (India) Pvt. Ltd. provisions. AO is required to record a valid satisfaction

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 7644/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 144C(5)Section 35DSection 92C(2)

GROUND NO. 15 The learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Assessee has raised following additional ground in its appeal, which is reproduced below: - “The following Grounds of Appeal

DCIT- 32(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Glitter Jewels, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenues allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1366/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-32(1), M/S Glitter Jewels, Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya 120/B, Mandpeshwar Ind. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Estate, Opp. Prem Nagar, Bandra (East), Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaafg 5495 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Kiran Mehta & Ravi Dasija, Ars Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Kiran Mehta & Ravi Dasija, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 133Section 133A

Penalty proceedings us 271(1)(c) are separately initiated in this s us 271(1)(c) are separately initiated in this context for concealment of income. context for concealment of income.” 4. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance

Dy. CIT-10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3175/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 55(2)

However, on the other hand, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that there was no occasion for the assessee to conceal the income/ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income rather entire facts have been brought on record and further contended that in the identical facts and circumstances ... provided necessary details contained in the audited financials, computation of income filed with the return of income there is no question of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance

Dy. CIT-10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2050/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 55(2)