← 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

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

well settled that under section 271(1)(e) the initial burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The burden shifts to the assessee only if he fails to offer any explanation for the undisclosed income ... signifies a deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. Such deliberate act must be either for the purpose of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 45. The term 'inaccurate particulars' is not defined. Furnishing of an assessment of value of the property

Cane Development Council Titawi, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 2615/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2612/Del/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Cane Deveopment Council बनाम Income Tax Officer, Rohana Kalan, Ward 1(2), Vs. C/O Dinesh Mohan, Advocate, Muzaffarnagar, 2-Anand Vihar, Lane No.1, Uttar Pradesh. Circular Road, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaalc0277F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,69,986.00 on account of Santage Charges and Rs.2,17,284.00 on account of difference in Masfault/Imulsation, which cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as per the provision of section 271(1)(c). 6. That the information filed and the material available

Cane Development Council Rohana Kalan, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 2613/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2612/Del/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Cane Deveopment Council बनाम Income Tax Officer, Rohana Kalan, Ward 1(2), Vs. C/O Dinesh Mohan, Advocate, Muzaffarnagar, 2-Anand Vihar, Lane No.1, Uttar Pradesh. Circular Road, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaalc0277F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,69,986.00 on account of Santage Charges and Rs.2,17,284.00 on account of difference in Masfault/Imulsation, which cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as per the provision of section 271(1)(c). 6. That the information filed and the material available

Cane Development Council Rohana Kalan, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 2612/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2612/Del/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Cane Deveopment Council बनाम Income Tax Officer, Rohana Kalan, Ward 1(2), Vs. C/O Dinesh Mohan, Advocate, Muzaffarnagar, 2-Anand Vihar, Lane No.1, Uttar Pradesh. Circular Road, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaalc0277F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,69,986.00 on account of Santage Charges and Rs.2,17,284.00 on account of difference in Masfault/Imulsation, which cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as per the provision of section 271(1)(c). 6. That the information filed and the material available

Meenaxi Gems Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(1)(4), Surat

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

ITA 613/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

since the Notice u/s.274 have been issued in general and mechanical manner, without striking- off the specific allegation of 'Concealment of income or Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income"; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Penalty levied u/s.271 ... Rs.11,99,924/-, though the initiation of penalty in the assessment order had been made under dual charge of 'Concealment of income' and 'Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income': 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Penalty u/s.271

Meenaxi Gems Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(1)(4), Surat

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

ITA 612/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

since the Notice u/s.274 have been issued in general and mechanical manner, without striking- off the specific allegation of 'Concealment of income or Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income"; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Penalty levied u/s.271 ... Rs.11,99,924/-, though the initiation of penalty in the assessment order had been made under dual charge of 'Concealment of income' and 'Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income': 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Penalty u/s.271

Pawan Kumar Sharma, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed as above

ITA 5348/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

case, therefore liable to be annulled. 2. That the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on dual grounds of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is illegal and not tenable under the law. 3. That the penalty order passed ... penalty order could not specify the charge for levy of penalty. i.e. whether the same is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. That the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is further illegal and not tenable under

Sathaiya Ganapathy, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

appreciating that the assessee had furnished an explanation along with documentary evidence. The addition was made under a deeming provision, and no deliberate concealment of income was established. Hence, the penalty is unjustified. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned ... mens rea or malafide intention. The disallowance or such addition arose due to non-filing of the return, not due to concealment of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not mentioning

Sathaiya Ganapathy, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 329/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

appreciating that the assessee had furnished an explanation along with documentary evidence. The addition was made under a deeming provision, and no deliberate concealment of income was established. Hence, the penalty is unjustified. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned ... mens rea or malafide intention. The disallowance or such addition arose due to non-filing of the return, not due to concealment of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not mentioning

A. T. Invofin Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 26, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1883/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

countered the same by submitting that merely disclosing all the facts is not sufficient if otherwise there is concealment of income and claim of bogus income. 6. In this context, we find that there was an information from the Investigation Wing, Calcutta about the assessee declaring fictitious loss in equity/derivative

Santosh Singh Hukam Singh Karnawat, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat

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

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

from M/s. Euro Diam and Rs. 67,77,719/- from M/s. Little Diam as an accommodation entry for A.Y. 2012-13 for concealment of income without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its right perspective for A.Y. 2012-13. Santosh Singh Hukam Singh Karnawat (Individual ... Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimate basis without any evidence on record with regard to concealment of income. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable to be imposed only where the assessee has concealed its particulars of income

Janseva Majoor Sahakari Sanshtha Maryadit, Mahim vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Lower Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5752/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush ChhachedFor Respondent: 12/11/2025
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the quantum addition was made purely on the estimated basis without finding as to concealment of income OR furnishing of inaccurate of income and therefore penalty cannot be imposed 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ltd. Commissioner

ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Ks Distribution and Sales Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1826/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Acit, Circle (3)(3)(1) Ks Distribution & Room No. 522 Sales Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 101 Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi M.K. Road Ind. State, New Link Mumbai-400 020. Road, Andheri West Mumbai-400 053. Pan : Aaacg1667L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Henanshu JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Agarwala
Section 10(38)Section 271Section 68

section 68 of the Act. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition stating that the transactions

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 530/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

addition sustained by the assessing officer, at the rate of 5% and 10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 527/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

addition sustained by the assessing officer, at the rate of 5% and 10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 525/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

addition sustained by the assessing officer, at the rate of 5% and 10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 518/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

addition sustained by the assessing officer, at the rate of 5% and 10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

ITA 515/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar - 361006 (Respondent) Pan No. - Aυτρκ7716N (Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 515,518,527&530/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2015-16) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar - 361006 (Respondent) Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 513 & 514/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar - 361006 (Respondent) Pan No. - Aαυτρκ7716N (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 514/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

addition sustained by the assessing officer, at the rate of 5% and 10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 513/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

addition sustained by the assessing officer, at the rate of 5% and 10%. Therefore, there is no definite charge on account of concealment of income, on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act should not be imposed on the assessee