“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

M/S Akshar Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3, Thane

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 893/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

order impugned before him. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BECAUSE, the CIT(A) has erred in law in 3. failing to understand that there is no concealment of income since the estimated income of Rs.273,87,071/- on account of RCBs, stood already disclosed in the hands of the partners Shri Hari Mujat

M/S Akshar Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3, Thane

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 892/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

M/S Akshar Developers, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3, Thane

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 891/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

Sankalp Retail Value Stores Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2426/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2426/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sankalp Retail Value Stores बिधम/ Acit-13(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Vs. 401, Rajiv Premji Apts., S.V. 400020. Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapc5897R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

malafide intention of Your Appellant to inflate the loss. c. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that there has been no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. d. Your appellant prays that the levy of penalty is bad in law & against the principle ... been done. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. Even before us, the ITA. No. 2426/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 learned Additional Solicitor General while placing the order

Shri Kenche Kumar, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1682/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 Shri. Kenche Kumar, Vs. Acit, 21St Ward, Bellary Road Circle, Central Circle – 2(1), Hospet– 583 201. Bengaluru. Pan : Avspk 7166L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN

M/S Mahadeo Shahra & S0Ns, Mubai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 152/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 271(1)(c)

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for concealment of income.” 4. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order holding as under:- “The assessee submitted before the AO that the interest-bearing loan was given to one Smt. Ruchi Mohan

Rakesh Kumar Pawa, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18, New Delhi

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

ITA 8059/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Rakesh Kumar Pawa, Vs Acit, E-21,Park Lane, Circle-18, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Agrpp6439R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in notice u/s 271(1)(c) i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Sending printed format where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy ... does not specify as to under which limb of the section the AO has initiated penalty proceedings i.e., either for concealment of income or for 6 furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. A perusal of the two notices issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings shows that

Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Jatiya, Mumbai

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

ITA 95/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(1) Vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Room No. 676B, 6Th Jatiya, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), Mk Road, Mumbai – 91, Marine Lines, 400020. Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpj8343D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Sanjiv Jain. Dr Respondent By : Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Sanjiv Jain. DRFor Respondent: Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54B

shown as agriculture income is hereby treated as income from other sources. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) as separately initiated for concealment of income. 4. Further, the A.O has denied the deduction U/sec54B of the Act based on the discussions on land and no Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Jatiya, Mumbai

M/S. Tejas Networks Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 15.2. The learned AO ought to have appreciated that penalty under section 271(1)(iii) of the Act for concealment of income or furnishing

M/S Tejats Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1119/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

Pasargad Techn Ologies Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1595/DEL/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Sachdeva, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

expenditure as well as income in its return, which in themselves were not found to be inaccurate, nor could be viewed as concealment of income on its part and merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which has not been accepted by the Revenue cannot lead to levy ... appeal and at para 13.32, held as under: “The appellant had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of its income with a view to concealment of income. The explanation of the appellant is not bonafide. The penalty against the appellant

Pasargad Techn Ologies Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1594/DEL/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Sachdeva, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Dy CIT-Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S. Bhawani Engineering Works, Thane

In the result, these revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1213/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 1213 & 1214/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Dcit, Circle-1, Thane Bhawani Engineering Works Vs. Room No.22, Unit No.2, Block No.2 B-Wing, 6Th Floor Rajshree Industrial Complex Ashar It Park Chitalsar, Manpada Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane(W)-400 610 Thane(W)-400 604 Pan : Aaefb1471C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed

ACIT Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6971/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 153ASection 271(1)

Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts

Umesh Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5139/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri P.K.Kedia

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

deleted the penalty. On the other hand, the Ld. DR referring to the assessment order submits that the penalty was levied for the concealment of income which is clearly spelt out in the assessment order. 6. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied ... facts, has felt that the assessing officer himself was not sure whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. 188. We may, in this context, respectfully observe that a contravention of a mandatory condition or requirement