“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

Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1), Mumbai vs. Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1666/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito, Ward-3(1), Kalyan बिधम/ Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, B-106 Shiv Sambhav Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W), Chsl, Veer Savarkar 421301. Road, Dombivli (E), Thane-421201. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeeps2956R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 11.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Facts Of The Case Is That The Ao In The Quantum Assessment Dated 30.12.2014 Had Added Rs.1,46,635/- Being 100% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. On Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A)-1 By Order Dated 25.06.2018 Reduced The Same To The Extent Of 25% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. Resultantly, The Addition Was Restricted To Rs.36,659/-. On Further Appeal By Revenue, The Tribunal Upheld The Action Of The Cit(A) (Ita. No 5079 & 5080/Mum/2018) & Thus The Revenue Appeal Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)(c)

relevant records. I find that the law is trite that the additions made on estimated basis cannot be subjected to penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thus, various Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals have consistently held the same view while deleting the penalty

Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

ITA 435/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 68

After assessments were completed, a raid was carried out, at the Nursing Home of the respondent- assessee on 7.12.2004. Some incriminating documents of concealment of income, were discovered. The assessee was not present at the time of inspection. He appeared before the AO on 12.12.1994 and surrendered the proposed additions

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

concerned, there is no case against the assessee-firm that these transactions had anything to do with evasion of tax or concealment of income. As rightly pointed by the CIT(A) himself, it may be a case of negligence. But a negligent person does not have any intention or mens ... section as there is no case against the assessee that these transactions had anything to do with evasion of tax or concealment of income." "On the contention of the assessee that the words "any other person" does not denote the director of the company, we are of the considered view

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessing authority having failed to indicate to the proceedings initiated either for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the show cause notice, the penalty proceedings initiated were bad in law and consequently the penalty levied is also

DCIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 439/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Cc-2(1) Vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Old Cgo Bldg, 804, Mehta, 8Th Floor, Mk Road, 602-603, Prasad Mumbai – 400020. Chambers,Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm3805D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 87/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita 439/Mum/2022) (A.Y: 2006-07) Shri Kumar Rasikal Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1) Mehta, Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 8Th 602-603, Prasad Floor, Mk Road, Chambers,Operahouse, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm3805D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri .Harsh Kapadia.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Tejinder Pal Singh.DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2006-07. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income. 5. Finally the AO has passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act determining the total income of Rs.78

Scorditte Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 2002/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

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

case was initiated on the charge of furnishing inaccurate of particulars of income whereas penalty under dispute was imposed on the charge of concealment of income and that too on the basis of defective penalty show cause notice issued without striking out inapplicable words and provisions. In view ... invoked. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT 292 ITR 11 has held the concealment of income and furnishing ITA. No.2002/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. Thus, the AO is duty bound to clearly convey

Mr. G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 677/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Gala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayanan, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

distinguishable. The Hon'ble Apex 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

Mrs. Shailaja G Tandel, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7548/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mrs. Shailaja G Tandel Ito Ward-4 401, Chandan Residency Panvel Raigad Plot No.33, Sector 44A, Vs. Nerul West, Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai-400 706 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Acppt6011K Assessee By : Shri Prakash Pandit, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54F

record any satisfaction with respect to which limb penalty proceedings are initiated. The Assessing Officer issued penalty notice stating twin charges i.e. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 03. The addition was upheld by the learned CIT (A) as per order dated 24th March, 2015. Against ... 30th January, 2014, The learned Assessing Officer did not strike off any of the twin charges. The penalty was levied on assessee for concealment of income. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Classic Shares and Stock Services Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA 1392/MUM/2022[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(1) Vs. M/S. Classic Shares R.No. 676B, 6Th Floor & Stock Services Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., M.K. Road, 121, 1St Floor, Radha Mumbai-400020 Bhawan, Nigindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400023 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc5745P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Ujjawal Kumar.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Akash Kumar.Ar Date Of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Ujjawal Kumar.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Akash Kumar.AR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

applied his mind and non striking of charge in the penalty notice i.e. whether the charge is for concealment of income or furnishing of in accurate particulars of income. We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court of Bombay in Mohd Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal ... present case, the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty as the A.O has not strike off the charge for levy of penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld.DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with any new cogent material

Arm Embedded Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: 2.1 Rejecting the value of international transaction of provision of SWD and proFor Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

case, the learned AO has erred in serving notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiating penalty proceedings for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein

Sri C Aswathanarayana, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds raised for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10

ITA 2584/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.2583 & 2584/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, the AO has not brought any evidence on record to prove that assessee had concealed the income except the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Hence, the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Income ... conducted at the assessee’s premises on 26/08/2008. During the search proceedings, incriminating documents evidencing phenomenal land transactions and concealment of income were found, seized and impounded. While analyzing the materials seized/impounded at his residence and office premises it was seen that he has about 1200 acres of land

Sri C Aswathanarayana, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds raised for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10

ITA 2583/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.2583 & 2584/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2934/MUM/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt.Shailja Rai. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri .Jayesh Dadia. AR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 55(2)

analyze the provisions of the sec. 271(1) (c) : "Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income etc. 271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person ... come to surface and is sliced away by means of such wrong claims. However, it is fundamental that both the situations, VIz. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income, ultimately lead to evasion of tax which is intended to be curbed by the penalty provision. 4.7. Explanation

Cifco Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-II) Cr-7, Mumbai

In the result all 16 appeals related to the assessee are disposed off

ITA 489/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal C Bench Mumbai Before Sri Amit Shukla J M & Prashant Maharishi Am In The Matter Of Cifco Finance Limited, [ Aaacc1765F] Bhupen Chambers, Dalal Street, Mumbai V The Asst Commissioner Of Income Tax Aykar Bhavan 4Th Floor , M K Road Mumbai 20

Section 143Section 147Section 271

dismissed, therefore, the learned AO levied penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) of the act by order dated 30/3/2009 leaving penalty for concealment of income. 79. While deciding the appeal of the assessee, against the order of the learned CIT – A in quantum proceedings, we have deleted all the additions confirmed