← 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

Trioka Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3298/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Trioka Estate Pvt Vs. Dcit – 2(3 Ltd.Citi Mall, 2Nd New Aayakar Bhavan, Link Road, Andheri (W), M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400053. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5759N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi. Ar Respondent By : Mr.V.Tripathi. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Of Rs. 1,51,47,401/- (Penalty Amount Shall Modify To The Extent Of Relief Granted By Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.Nitesh Joshi. ARFor Respondent: Mr.V.Tripathi. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as he himself is not clear whether such penalty is levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 1.2 The Ld. AR submitted that the additional grounds of appeal are on the legal & jurisdictional ... issue. The Assessing Officer (A.O) is not clear in his action whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. After hearing the submissions of the Ld.AR and the Ld.DR, the additional ground of appeal is admitted. Whereas, the Ld.AR has restricted his arguments

Shorline Hotel P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT- CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 253/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

against the assesee as to whether the notice is meant for the charge against the assessee of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income warranting levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. In identical situation, Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in the case of Mohammed ... 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

Choice Diamond, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 27/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 27/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2012-13) Choice Diamond, Cc-4101, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaafc-0677-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 19(1), 203, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 007 अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Dharshti Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Dharshti ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

under section 143(3) of the Act would show that penalty has been initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the income. However, in the notice both limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars ... performa without striking 3 off the limb which is not relevant. In the present case the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income. However, in the notice we observe both charges under section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing

Shoreline Hotel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 258/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Vivek Upadhay. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

aspects (i) The notice issued for levy of penalty does not specify the charge or limb, whether the charge is for concealment of income or furnishing of in accurate particulars of income and (ii) the penalty cannot be Shoreline Hotel Ltd, Mumbai. levied on estimated income. We find ... initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order, the AO has observed that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealed the income. Whereas, in the order passed imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO has alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

Sri Amit Kumar Loya, Gulbarga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Belagavi

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

ITA 38/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M.K. Biju, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

bonafide one and the assessee furnishes all facts and materials relating thereto, then the addition made shall not be deemed to be concealment of income. We derive support for this interpretation from the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of M M Gujamgadi (supra ... entire reference papers. 8. Section 271 of the Act specifies imposition of penalty for failure to furnish returns, comply with the notices, concealment of income, etc. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act authorises the assessing authority or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to levy penalty in case

Aesthetica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5133/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

addition towards undisclosed income offered before Settlement Commission etc., the nature of default per se is not relevant to defend the circumstances for concealment of income. Ld. DR further submitted that the ratio of 5 ITAs. No. 5132 & 5133/DEL/2017 various decisions referred to and relied upon are not relevant ... Officer after providing the assessee an opportunity to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied for concealment of income, and considering the same, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax sought

Aesthetica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5132/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

addition towards undisclosed income offered before Settlement Commission etc., the nature of default per se is not relevant to defend the circumstances for concealment of income. Ld. DR further submitted that the ratio of 5 ITAs. No. 5132 & 5133/DEL/2017 various decisions referred to and relied upon are not relevant ... Officer after providing the assessee an opportunity to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied for concealment of income, and considering the same, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax sought

Chetu India Private Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3331/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Singhal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr.D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

itself is bad in law in as much as the AO himself was not sure about the charge since the notice refers to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in terms of Explanation 1,2,3,4,and 5 while para 3 of penalty order refers

Unicare Developer & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2303/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Unicare Developer & Infrastructure Vs. Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-27(1), 71/7A, Ff, Rama Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcu3616N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

words have not been struck off and even in the assessment order also there is no specific 4 charge against the assessee for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Thus, according to the assessee, in absence of any proper charge by the AO in the notice issued ... specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings have been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. Since, the AO in the instant case has not struck off the inappropriate words in the notice issued

Mr. Yeruva Prasad, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 589/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yatish, 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

Mr. Yeruva Prasad, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 588/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yatish, 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

Maheshwari Woods Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 586/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.H.Ganpatlal Kawad, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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

Maheshwari Woods Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 585/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.H.Ganpatlal Kawad, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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

Srinivas Achar Mohankumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 568/BANG/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mahesh Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 36Section 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

Tv Today Network Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6542/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

appreciate that, there was neither furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income nor could it be validly held that there was any concealment of income on the facts of the case neither there was any specific finding by learned ACIT regarding furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income

Mridu Hari Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1133/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

While levying penalty, the Assessing Officer, at para 7 of his order, observed that the present case would fall under concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused. 6. Notice ... read s under: 5 7. A perusal of the above shows that the Assessing Officer was not certain whether penalty was leviable for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below

Metalsa India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

group subsidiary companies. 1. That the Ld. A.O has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income. 2. That each ground of appeal is independent and without prejudice to other grounds of appeal raised herein. 4 3. That the appellate craves

Bumi Hiwat (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4932/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Bumi Hiwat (India) P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 5(1), A1/292, Pankha Road, New Delhi. Janakpuri, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Mrs. Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ground for which the penalty was levied, namely, whether the penalty is on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. Assessee also challenged the penalty proceedings on merits stating that there is no concealment of income whatsoever nor any furnishing of inaccurate particulars, inasmuch ... further submitted that the conduct of the assessee in making untenable claims amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealment of income. 6. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Assessment order dated 24/12/2011 clearly shows that

M/S. Prime Quality Consultants (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Tulsiyan, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

this appeal, mainly contending that where the penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, it cannot be levied both for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case ... issued to the assessee asking him to explain why penalty under section 271(1)( c) of the Act should not be levied for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Ultimately penalty was levied by order dated 20/3/2012 for concealment of its particulars of income and furnishing

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Charchit Agarwal, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7618/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Charchit Agarwal Central Circle – 28 1245, Kucha Mahajani, New Delhi Chandni Chowk New Delhi - 110006 Pan No. Adspa 0329 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Revenue By Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.09.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 29, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

income surrendered during the course of survey has been included in the return of income and taxes paid thereon, there cannot be any concealment of income or nor non- disclosure of income on the part of the assessee. He submitted that CIT(A) has rightly, following the decision