← 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

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 5138/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

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

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 5137/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

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 5136/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

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

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 5135/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

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

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 5134/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

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

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3117/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri C.N. Prasadasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

levied by the AO. The penalty levied is wrong and bad in law and should be deleted. 2. Whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is not evident from the notice nor from the penalty order. Penalty provisions being quasi-judicial, unless ... notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the notice dated 27/3/2015 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 209/DEL/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2002-03

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

inaccurate particulars. [ Para 9 ]. The Revenue contended that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they were incorrect, it amounted to concealment of income. It was argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently ... inaccurate particulars of income. Such contention could not be accepted as the assessee had furnished all the details of its 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

Telecomone Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 695/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Cherian K.Baby, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

distinguishable. The Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the question of whether penalty can be imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income where returned losses were reduced in assessment and there was no tax payable by the assessee. Earlier, the Hon'ble Apex Court

Telecomone Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 694/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Cherian K.Baby, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

distinguishable. The Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the question of whether penalty can be imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income where returned losses were reduced in assessment and there was no tax payable by the assessee. Earlier, the Hon'ble Apex Court

Sri. Shamanna Nagamma Balasubramany, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 682/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

distinguishable. The Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the question of whether penalty can be imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income where returned losses were reduced in assessment and there was no tax payable by the assessee. Earlier, the Hon'ble Apex Court

Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 670/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 30Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 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 7 M/s.Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. where returned losses were reduced in assessment and there was no tax payable by the assessee. Earlier

Shri. Kirit J Kadecha, Mumbai vs. ITO 32 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6504/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2004-05 ) Shri Kirit Kadecha, Room No.1, Sai Sadan, Roshan Nagar, Chandavarkar Road, Borivali West, Mumbai 400 092 Pan: Aghpk-4337-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Ito-32(2)(2), Room No.108, 1St Floor, C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smitha Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smitha Nair
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 15/12/2011 was served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 29/12/2017 levied penalty of Rs.2,33,060/- for concealment of income in respect of addition made in assessment order. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A) assailing levy of penalty ... Officer has observed as under:- “Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars leading to concealment of income.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT, 292 ITR 11 has held that concealment of income

Sri. P Anand Vardhan Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 663/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43E

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

Venkara Reddy Pramod Reddy, Tumkuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 659/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Gopinath C.H., CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

distinguishable. The Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the question of whether penalty can be imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income where returned losses were reduced in assessment and there was no tax payable by the assessee. Earlier, the Hon'ble Apex Court

Shri Pankaj Singh, Faridabad vs. Assessing Officer (Income Tax Officer), Faridabad

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

ITA 2579/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. N. Shete, Sr. D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 15

unexplained, being invested from undisclosed sources. Since, the assessee deliberately concealed the particulars of income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income are being initiated separately, and net income of the assessee is as under. “ 5. Before us the ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer

ACIT 26(1), Mumbai vs. Manisha Manish Jaitha, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 1236/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bleand

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 143(3)Section 148

before the AO and before me in the appellate proceedings. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the following addition which were made in the assessment order: a. Unexplained credits in foreign

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3803/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishore, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

issue at the relevant point of time [Assessment Years under consideration] cannot be the subject matter of filing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income when the facts were very much available with the Assessing Officer. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we do not find

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3802/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishore, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

issue at the relevant point of time [Assessment Years under consideration] cannot be the subject matter of filing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income when the facts were very much available with the Assessing Officer. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we do not find

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3801/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishore, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

issue at the relevant point of time [Assessment Years under consideration] cannot be the subject matter of filing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income when the facts were very much available with the Assessing Officer. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we do not find

Ramjilal G Johar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 409/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ramjilal G. Johar Ito 19(3)(1) C/O M/S Arvind G. Shah Vs. Matru Mandir, 407 Lotus House, 33A Aayakar Karyalaya, New Marine Lines Nana Chowk, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 007

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Ahuja. Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

default, viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee, but had thereafter imposed the penalty for other default, i.e, concealment of income by the 4 ITA No.409/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 Ramjilal G. Johar VS. ITO 19(3)(1) assessee, therefore, he had wrongly assumed jurisdiction, as a result ... initiated the penalty proceedings allegedly for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee, but, had thereafter imposed the same for concealment of income, therefore, the it could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts