← 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

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 501/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

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

The Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Projects Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal are allowed whereas Cross Objection No

ITA 1165/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1) of the IT Act separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income. Further the assessee company without prejudice argued that the company has not claimed service tax/work contract tax in the P&L account and therefore

Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- Panvel -Circle Panvel, Panvel

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3132/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd The Dcit, Gti House, Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Panvel, Circle Panvel Vs. Seva Uran, Mumbai-400 707 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccg1899E Assessee By : Shri Manish Kanth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 801ASection 80I

clearly reflected in the audited financial statements of the Appellant and hence, there is no question, of concealment of income. 1.4 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that penalty cannot be levied in absence of any additional tax liability on account of reduction

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 295/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

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

issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income in the show cause notice. The Ld.AR further stated that this additional ground of appeal ... assessee’s case would be covered under both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) viz. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Harprashad

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 294/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

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

issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income in the show cause notice. The Ld.AR further stated that this additional ground of appeal ... assessee’s case would be covered under both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) viz. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Harprashad

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 293/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

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

issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income in the show cause notice. The Ld.AR further stated that this additional ground of appeal ... assessee’s case would be covered under both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) viz. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Harprashad

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 292/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

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

issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income in the show cause notice. The Ld.AR further stated that this additional ground of appeal ... assessee’s case would be covered under both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) viz. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Harprashad

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 291/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

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

issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income in the show cause notice. The Ld.AR further stated that this additional ground of appeal ... assessee’s case would be covered under both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) viz. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Harprashad

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 290/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

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

issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income in the show cause notice. The Ld.AR further stated that this additional ground of appeal ... assessee’s case would be covered under both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) viz. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Harprashad

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 289/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

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

issued a show cause notice for levy of penalty for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 without striking off inapplicable charge between concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income in the show cause notice. The Ld.AR further stated that this additional ground of appeal ... assessee’s case would be covered under both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) viz. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Harprashad

M/S. Rolex Lanolin Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

ITA 271/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 271 & 272/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Cit(A), Mumbai M/S Rolex Lanolin Products Ltd. बिधम/ 14, Old Tejpal Ind. Estate, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacr3499P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Chovatia Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 07.07.2022 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 06.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Chovatia Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

tinkered. The addition ultimately has been made on estimation of GP rate on purchase. Hence it cannot be held that there is any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate of particulars of income. Therefore, penalty levied and sustained by the First Appellate Authority directed to be deleted

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2445/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. D. B. Shah. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Hoshang B. Irani.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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. The Ld.AR demonstrated the copy of penalty notice and the submissions are realistic. We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court ... view that in the present case the A.O has not has not strike off the charge for levy of penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we set aside the 8. Sailesh Mehta v. CIT(A) ITA No.2445, 2439, 2444 &2443/Mum/2021 order

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2444/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. D. B. Shah. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Hoshang B. Irani.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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. The Ld.AR demonstrated the copy of penalty notice and the submissions are realistic. We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court ... view that in the present case the A.O has not has not strike off the charge for levy of penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we set aside the 8. Sailesh Mehta v. CIT(A) ITA No.2445, 2439, 2444 &2443/Mum/2021 order

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2443/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. D. B. Shah. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Hoshang B. Irani.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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. The Ld.AR demonstrated the copy of penalty notice and the submissions are realistic. We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court ... view that in the present case the A.O has not has not strike off the charge for levy of penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we set aside the 8. Sailesh Mehta v. CIT(A) ITA No.2445, 2439, 2444 &2443/Mum/2021 order

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. D. B. Shah. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Hoshang B. Irani.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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. The Ld.AR demonstrated the copy of penalty notice and the submissions are realistic. We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court ... view that in the present case the A.O has not has not strike off the charge for levy of penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we set aside the 8. Sailesh Mehta v. CIT(A) ITA No.2445, 2439, 2444 &2443/Mum/2021 order

Pritesh Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD, 27(2) (5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2022[2009-10`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022
For Appellant: Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

traced at 4 A.Y. 2009-10 Pritesh Jitendra Mehta the given address would not automatically lead to a conclusion that there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The assessee made a claim which was bona fide and the same was coupled with documentary evidences

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. The Thane District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 2512/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2512/मुं/2019 ("न. व .2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -3, Thane, Room No.02, 6Th Floor, Aashar It Park, B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16Z, Thane (W)- 400 604. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Thane District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. 01, Chhatrapati Shivaji Path, Post Box No.19, Thane (W)- 400 601. Pan: Aaaat-0739-N ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Sinha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Patil सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Manoj SinhaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Patil
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

irrelevant limb in the notice as well as for the reason that it is not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The Co-ordinate Bench placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. (supra). The ld.Authorized Representative

Hiren Bechar Patel, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Ward-2(5), Kalyan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal: A.Y : 2012-13 Hiren Bechar Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 111, Akshardam, Ward-2(5), Kalyan Floor 5/6, Kansai Section, (Respondent) Ambernath East, Ambernath 421 501, Maharashtra. (Appellant) Pan : Aolpp7438Q

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act he is initiating the penalty whether for furnishing of ‘inaccurate particulars of income’ or for ‘concealment of income’. In para 5 of the impugned order, he has simply said that penalty proceedings are separately initiated. Even though in the assessment order

Shantilal Balubhai Parekh, Mumbai vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.580/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shantilal Balubhai Parekh बिधम/ Ito, Ward 3(4) 24, Gaurav Apartment, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Nahur Village Road, Above Canara Bank, Sarvoday Nagar, Mulund Murbad Road, Kalyan, West, Mumbai-400080. Maharashtra -421301. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akcpp9255C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Radha Halbe Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Ojha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 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 09.07.2021 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. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A), Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.83,282/-. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Ms. Radha Halbe Brought To Our Notice That The Impugned Penalty Levied By Ao Is Bad In Law For Issuing Defective Notice Before Levying The Penalty. To Buttress This Contention, She Drew Our Attention To The Show Cause Notice (Scn) Issued By The Ao U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated

For Appellant: Ms. Radha HalbeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 2 A.Y. 2009-10 Shantilal Balubhai Parekh 19.01.2015 which according to her is defective, since both the faults/charges i.e. have “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income” are both featuring in the show cause notice; and since the AO has not stricken out the inapplicable fault/charges

Kedaara Capital Advisors LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha (Sr. AR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Kedaara Capital Advisors LLP the Act dated 05.03.2016 is defective, since both the faults/charges i.e. have “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income” are both featuring in the show cause notice and since the AO has not stricken-off the inapplicable fault/charges, the assessee was unable