“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

Hemal Maganlal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. H.M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

case & in the law, the assessee states that there has been no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income & he has not concealed the income and has voluntarily offered the Income during assessments proceeding and appellate proceedings and that additions has be unmade on some G P. estimation. Therefore Penalty ... inaccurate particulars' by him. The assessee also relies on following decisions of various High Courts to put weight that he has not concealed the Income. Judicial Pronouncements: 1. Surat Fashions Ltd. vs. ACIT [2011-ITRV-ITAT-AHD-124] 2. Narayansingh J. Deora vs. ACIT [2011-ITRV-ITAT

Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 157/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R

Section 132Section 153A

assessment year 2009-10. (Addition: Rs.60,00,00,000/-) (Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated for concealment of income.) 2.1 Against this assessee carried this appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing as follows:- “15. Perusal ... made for all the years. The Hon’ble Court held that what weighed with the Court in the said decision was the “habitual concealing of income and indulging in clandestine operations”. Thus, it has been held that the distinguishing factors of Dayawanti Gupta supra, do not detract from the settled

DCIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sphynx Agro Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6632/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27i

which the penalty proceedings were initiated, whether the same was on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or on account of concealment of income and therefore the penalty Order be treated as non-est and quashed. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not passing a speaking order ... goes to prove that penalty levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income has been deleted on the sole ground that the entire assessment was framed on estimated basis which does not attract

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 441/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

while the notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2012. In the above set of facts, the Appellant has stated that there is no concealment of income. On careful consideration, the following facts emerge: (i) no addition has been made by the AO while passing the order u/s 143 r.w.s

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 440/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 438/MUM/2022[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

DCIT CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR

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

deciding that the addition made by the AO in respect of waiver of loan treating the same as taxable does not tantamount to concealment of income/ filing of inaccurate particulars of M/s Anik Industires Ltd., Mumbai. income ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to give explanation which ... gathered that the omission was attributable to an intention or desire on the part of the assessee to hide or conceal the income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon. A similar view was held in the case of M. Hussain Ali & Sons

M/S Resources Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Acti-Central Circle-11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1830/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Asst. CIT Circle-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 6530/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhasst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Future E-Commerce Income Tax, Circle- Infrastructure Limited 9(3)(2), Room No. 418, Ground Floor, Knowledge 4Th Floor, Aayakar House, Off Jogeshwari Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikhroli Link Road, Mumbai – 400020 Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai - 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcf1008K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

statement and it has also provided detailed explanation during the course of assessment proceedings and also explained that it had not made any concealment of income and not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. However, the A.O has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and levied penalty ... head note is reproduced as under: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Recording of satisfaction) Whether where assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143Section 153DSection 263

return filed in response to notice u/s.153C. The assessee therefore prayed the income offered to buy peace cannot be treated as concealment of income and that no further income need to be added. 15. The AO did not agree with the contentions of the assessee and concluded the assessment adding

ITO 27(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Padma Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2366/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalito 27(2)(1) Vs. M/S Padma Industries Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, A/18, Muni Suvrat Tower No.6, Vashi Darshan, Navroji Lane, Railway Station Complex, (Cama Lane), Ghatkopar Vashi, Navi (W), Mumbai - 400086 Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaifp9236D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 271(1)(c)

deleted the penalty holding that addition made on estimated basis cannot be subjected to penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on a number of pronouncements of Hon’ble High Courts’ and Tribunals. 4. Heard both the sides

Unique Estates Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cent. Cir-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2110/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2110/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Unique Estates Dev. Co. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1906, 19Th Vs. Construction House-B, 2Nd Floor, Air India Bldg, Floor, 623, Linking Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0699N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Dated 26.10.2021 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, On Issue Of Advancing Of Interest Free Loans Of Rs.4,68,220/- & So Called Bogus Purchases Of Rs.5,84,076/-.” 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.12,39,12,768/-. The Scrutiny Assessment Was Completed On 18.03.2014 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income (Normal Computation) At Rs.21,59,51,554/-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay B. SawantFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni

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

should not be levied. Pursuant to which the assessee requested the AO to specify the fault/charge against the assessee i.e. have “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income”, since in the penalty notice dated 18.03.2014 there was no specific mention about the fault/charge which the AO proposed

Roshan Sequeira, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 343/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.343/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shri Roshan Sequeira बिधम/ Dcit-24(3) Iqn Data Solutions Pvt. Piramal Chambers, Vs. Ltd., 347, Laxmi Plaza Indl. Mumbai-400012. Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asbps3025N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai Dated (Not Specified) For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Discernable From Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.18,00,000/-. 3. At The Outset, We Note That A Notice Has Been Issued By The Ao Dated 04.03.2014 Proposing Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which According To Assessee Is Bad In Law. From A Perusal Of The Penalty Notice Dated 04.03.2014, We Note That The Ao Has Not Specified The Fault/Charge For Which Assessee Has Been Put To Notice For Levy Of Penalty. Meaning, The Show Cause Notice Does Not Specify For What

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice does not specify for what 2 A.Y. 2009-10 Roshan Sequeira fault/charge the penalty has been proposed against the assessee i.e. have “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income”. Having not done so, the assesse was in the dark as to what fault

Red Hat India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5831/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5831/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5833/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5834/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Cir-15(3)(1), M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, A 201, Supreme Business Park, बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Supreme City, Hiranandani Vs. Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7097N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6034/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6036/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6037/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Cir-15(3)(1), R. No. 473, Aayakar A 201, Supreme Business बनाम/ Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Park, Supreme City, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7097N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddeshFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 9(1)(vi)

added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 15. Ld. CIT (A) too has confirmed the reasoning of the AO and independently referred to the ‘Reseller

DCIT Circle- 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sanjivaini Parenteral Ltd., M

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for filing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income Manipulation of share price: 5. With regard to manipulation of share price, during the course of survey proceedings at 205, P.N. Kothari Industrial Estate

DCIT, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S- Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4153/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4152/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Nna Cre Properties LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1499/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Nna Cre Properties Llp बिधम/ Acit-20(2) B-4101, B-Wing, One Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Avighna Park, Mahadeo Piramal Chambers, Palav Marg, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400012. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakfn0759M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. Learned Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Issuing Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Without Application Of Mind, As The Same Is Issued Without Mentioning That Whether It Is Levied For Concealment Of The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. It Is Note Know To Appellate As To Under Which Ground The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied. Hon. Cit(A) Has Also Erred In Not Considering The Same. 2. Learned Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,29,503/- On Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.4,19,102/-

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

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

specified as to what specific fault as envisaged u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been committed by the assessee i.e. “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income”. Rather the show cause notice reveals that the AO has asked the assessee as to why the penalty

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in his assessment order, for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on part of the appellant. The appellant contends that the adjustment was merely on account of difference of opinion, besides, the appellant has neither

Datacorp Traffic Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 502/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Ms.Veena V.H., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., , Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 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