← 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

Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA Nos.538/CTK/2025 & ITA No

ITA 565/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.538 & 541/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.S4/10 Niladri Vihar, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar Pan No.: Aahcs 0489 D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, Ars : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Appeared In Ita Nos.538&541/Ctk/2025 & Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr Appeared In

For Respondent: Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, ARs
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

liberty is granted to the jurisdictional AO to reinitiate the proceedings and addition be made if it is found that there is concealment of income. With this direction, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.541/CTK/2025 stands allowed. ITA No.565/CTK/2025 (AY : 2016-2017) 12. In regard to this appeal

Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA Nos.538/CTK/2025 & ITA No

ITA 541/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.538 & 541/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.S4/10 Niladri Vihar, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aahcs 0489 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Appeared In Ita Nos.538&541/Ctk/2025 & Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr Appeared In Ita No.565/Ctk/2025. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR appeared in
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

liberty is granted to the jurisdictional AO to reinitiate the proceedings and addition be made if it is found that there is concealment of income. With this direction, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.541/CTK/2025 stands allowed. 12. In regard to this appeal, ld. AR submitted that this

Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, W1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA Nos.538/CTK/2025 & ITA No

ITA 538/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.538 & 541/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.S4/10 Niladri Vihar, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aahcs 0489 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Appeared In Ita Nos.538&541/Ctk/2025 & Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr Appeared In Ita No.565/Ctk/2025. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR appeared in
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

liberty is granted to the jurisdictional AO to reinitiate the proceedings and addition be made if it is found that there is concealment of income. With this direction, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.541/CTK/2025 stands allowed. 12. In regard to this appeal, ld. AR submitted that this

Proton Positive Health Care India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 812/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

levy of penalty without recording any proper satisfaction in the Assessment order ie., whether for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income and hence invalid. 6. The Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars with regard to addition under Section 56(2)(viib) being

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Axis Overseas Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2425/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

amounting to disallowance of Rs. 2,67,75,667/-. Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. So, for sake of consistency in department stand on the issue, addition of notional interest is made @ 12% amounting

Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed is allowed

ITA 6454/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S.Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit – 4(2)(1) 6/7, Silk House, Silk Bazar, Jss Road, Room No. 422, Aayakar Bhavan, Girgaon, Mumbai-400 002 Vs. M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 1890 P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Ritu Punjabi, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Dated 26.08.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Confirming The Penalty Imposed Of Rs.16,88,670/- U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. We Have Considered The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.10.2016, Declaring Nil Income Under The Normal Provisions & Book Profit Of Rs.9,12,562/- U/S. 115Jb Of The Act. The Return So Filed By The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. In Course Of Assessment Proceeding, The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) Noticed That An Amount Of Rs.56,28,900/-

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Punjabi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)Section 3

assessee’s business. Hence, he disallowed the expenditure and initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, alleging concealment of income. 3. Though, the assessee contested the disallowance before ld. first appellate authority and, thereafter, before the Tribunal, however, ultimately, assessee withdrew its appeal since ... claim were disclosed to the Department. Therefore, we fail to understand in such a scenario how the A.O. can record a satisfaction of concealment of income while invoking the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, a reading of the order passed

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 263/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the provision ... very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 262/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the provision ... very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 261/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the provision ... very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions

DCIT 19.1 Mumbai, Lalbag Mumbai vs. Ambika Diamonds, Bkc Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5873/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

irrelevant portion in the penalty notice and the penalty notice has been issued for both i.e. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for concealment of income. The appellant has relied upon catena of judgements of Hon’ble higher courts as well as the binding judgements of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench ... submitted that the assessee has accepted the fact that the purchases are bogus and therefore there is concealment of income to the extent of profit element embedded therein. Accordingly the ld DR supported the order of the AO. We notice that the lower authorities have ultimately found that

Etesh P. Jain(Karta), Shree Darshan Pipes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

which is extracted as below:- “6. The Appellant therefore with reference to levy of penalty respectfully submit that there is neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of particulars of income. The addition / disallowances made by the AO are only estimated addition and same can only be termed as difference ... Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, penalty levied

Etesh Prakash Jain (Karta), Shree Darshan Pipes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5819/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

which is extracted as below:- “6. The Appellant therefore with reference to levy of penalty respectfully submit that there is neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of particulars of income. The addition / disallowances made by the AO are only estimated addition and same can only be termed as difference ... Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, penalty levied

Etesh Prakash Jain(HUF), Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5734/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

which is extracted as below:- “6. The Appellant therefore with reference to levy of penalty respectfully submit that there is neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of particulars of income. The addition / disallowances made by the AO are only estimated addition and same can only be termed as difference ... Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, penalty levied

Shiva Preservation Private Limited, Etawah vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), Etawah

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 318/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 274Section 68

learned AO in the assessment proceedings. In the said quantum assessment proceedings, the learned AO recorded the satisfaction that Assessee had attempted to conceal the income of Rs 4,25,000/- by furnishing of inaccurate particulars and accordingly initiated penalty proceedings under section ... levied wherein clearly there was a finding by the learned AO that Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed the income. It is pertinent to note that the quantum addition of Rs 4,25,000/- stood sustained up to the level of this Tribunal. 5. Now the short

Bhupatbhai Dhanjibhai Kothari, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 578/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Am Arate Sitet F/Ita No.578/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

added to his income. Later on, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for concealment of income. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act was issued on 25.09.2018 and served upon the assessee. In response to the said notice

Keshav Kumar Nachani, Indore vs. DCIT-1(1), Indore

ITA 162/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

High Court wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show-cause notice the Assessing Officer has not specified specifically charges ... Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of total income Page 8 of 14 Keshav Kumar Nachani LT.A No. 162, 137 & 161And/2025 A.Ys

Keshav Kumar Nachani, Indore vs. DCIT-1(1), Indore

ITA 161/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

High Court wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show-cause notice the Assessing Officer has not specified specifically charges ... Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of total income Page 8 of 14 Keshav Kumar Nachani LT.A No. 162, 137 & 161And/2025 A.Ys

Keshav Kumar Nachani, Indore vs. DCIT-1(1), Indore

ITA 137/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

High Court wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show-cause notice the Assessing Officer has not specified specifically charges ... Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of total income Page 8 of 14 Keshav Kumar Nachani LT.A No. 162, 137 & 161And/2025 A.Ys

Huhtamaki Food Services Packaging India P Ltd (Erstwhile Known As M/S. Valpack Solutions P Ltd), Thane vs. ACIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6064/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailhuhtamaki Foodservice Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As ‘M/S. Valpack Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), 54/B, Hissa No.3A, Jangid Commercial Point S No.54 B Hissa No.3A Jangid C, Vadpe B.O. ............... Appellant Dhamangaon, Thane – 421302 Pan : Aaecv1431D V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1)(1)., ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

nature was completely due to bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee and there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income in respect of particulars of income justifying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as all the details form part ... this disallowance. 11. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that there is no wilful furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income on 6 this issue, and the entire addition is due to a difference of opinion between the assessee and the Revenue. 12. Having considered

Income Tax Officer 19.1.1, Piramal Chamber Lal Baug vs. A J Diam, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3845/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

that the notice issued for imposing penalty was not valid notice because it has mentioned both the limbs i.e. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income despite the fact that AO has initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income only. 4. Aggrieved by the order ... deliberate failure to furnish accurate particulars of the income, which attracts for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of income?" 5. Ground No. 1 to 6 pertains to deletion of penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) and only one ground no. 7 is with