← 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

Ashu Ashok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

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

ITA 1045/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

Learned Commissioner of Income-lax (Appeals) has erred in not cancelling the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271( 1)( c) as there was no concealment of income.” 4. At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has filed additional ground of appeal under Rule

Ashu Asok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

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

ITA 1044/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

Learned Commissioner of Income-lax (Appeals) has erred in not cancelling the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271( 1)( c) as there was no concealment of income.” 4. At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has filed additional ground of appeal under Rule

Rupesh D Desai Legal Heir of Late Pravin Desai, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward 27(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2505/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

himself declared the additional income of Rs. 31,25,160/-, for which taxes were duly paid. This acknowledgment constitutes an admission of concealment of income and the furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the original return. The appellant has submitted a lengthy argument about the distinction between concealment and inaccurate particulars ... this case. By voluntarily acknowledging the addition of Rs. 31,25,160/- and paying taxes thereon, the appellant implicitly accepted that he concealed specific income in his original return, thereby engaging in a deliberate misrepresentation of his income. "Concealment of income" refers to an intentional failure to report or disclose

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3084/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

amounting to INR 20,33,93,765/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as no satisfaction as to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof was recorded in the assessment Notice. 5. 23.08.2021 ITAT ‘F’ Bench, Delhi passed an order reversing the order ... amounting to INR 20,33,93,765/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as no satisfaction as to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof was recorded in the assessment Notice.” (emphasis supplied) 4.2 In this case, it was noticed that

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3083/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

amounting to INR 20,33,93,765/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as no satisfaction as to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof was recorded in the assessment Notice. 5. 23.08.2021 ITAT ‘F’ Bench, Delhi passed an order reversing the order ... amounting to INR 20,33,93,765/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as no satisfaction as to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof was recorded in the assessment Notice.” (emphasis supplied) 4.2 In this case, it was noticed that

Sh.Mohit Batola, Dehradun vs. ACIT, CC, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/DDN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mohit Batola Vs Acit 155, Village Miyanwala Central Circle P.O.-Harrawala, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aftpb3533M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Verendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 Order

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

assessee was not show caused to explain whether the penalty is going to be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income as the word ‘OR’ was not strike off in both the notices. 6. As per Section ... should record his satisfaction that the assessee has either concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. From the perusal of both the notices issued u/s.274(1) r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act as reproduced above, it could be seen that AO has not specifically pointed

Sangam Eanta Udyog, Pratapgarh vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

highly unjustified. 2. That in any view of the matter the proceeding as initiated is not a valid proceedings as there was no concealment of income nor any proper satisfaction was recorded about concealment of income hence entire action u/s 147 of the Act is not a judicious action

Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 601/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Ito Ward-2, At & Post Areth, Tal Mandvi, Aayakar Bhavan, Janta Nagar Surat-394160. Vs. Society, Bardoli-394601. Pan No. Ajjpg 4246 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Shaunak K. Zaveri, CA
Section 143(3)

penalty ITA No. 601/SRT/2025 4 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi proceedings under section s under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. for concealment of income. The relevant finding of ld AO is reproduced as under The relevant finding of ld AO is reproduced as under

Rajvee Exports, Surat vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Surat

In the result, we find no infirmity in the impugned order

ITA 520/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Rajvee Exports, Dcit, Central Circle 3, 400, Shri Godiji Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Devidas Pipla Road, Vs. Surat-395001. Mahidharpura, S.O. Surat-395003. Pan No. Aagfr 1008 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. I am satisfied that assesse has concealed its income to evade the I am satisfied that assesse has concealed its income to evade the I am satisfied that assesse has concealed its income ... 271AAC is separately due taxes, hence penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is separately due taxes, hence penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is separately initiated for concealment of income. concealment of income.” 3. Thereafter, The ld The ld PCIT on examination of the assessment on examination of the assessment record

Ankit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1303/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)
Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

settled principle that for valid initiation of penalty under this provision, the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether the charge pertains to “concealment of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." In the present case, the assessment order is conspicuously silent on this fundamental aspect, thereby depriving the appellant

Ankit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1302/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)
Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

settled principle that for valid initiation of penalty under this provision, the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether the charge pertains to “concealment of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." In the present case, the assessment order is conspicuously silent on this fundamental aspect, thereby depriving the appellant

Anshul Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1301/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)
Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

settled principle that for valid initiation of penalty under this provision, the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether the charge pertains to “concealment of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." In the present case, the assessment order is conspicuously silent on this fundamental aspect, thereby depriving the appellant

Kapil Chamanlal Setia, Dhule vs. Addl/Joint/Dy/Asst.CIT/ITO, Itd, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 810/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.810/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 250

additions made u/s.69A of the I.T.Act, 1961, penalty proceedings u/s.271AAC of the I.T. Act, 1961 is being initiated separately for concealment of income in consequence of misrepresentation of material facts and concealment of income.” 4 Kapil Chamanlal Setia 3. Aggrieved with the additions assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT

Tejas Shivaji Adsul, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Naik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(6)

intentional. The Ld. AO accepted the returned income without making any additions or modifications which shows that no discrepancies, understatements or concealment of income have been identified and hence there is no justification for imposing the impugned penalty. However, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not find these contentions

Jetsynthesys Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 346/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jetsynthesys Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Limited, 101-104, 1St Floor, Metro House, Mangaldas Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaicm1358A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of The Act It Be Held That The Penalty Imposed U/S 270A

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt ... 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

Amit Suresh Agrawal, Satara vs. ITO Ward-2, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2225/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

proceedings are not sustainable in law as the primary addition itself is unjustified and liable to be deleted. In the absence of any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, no penalty can be levied. 9. The Assessing Officer has erroneously charged interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C

Seetha Balu, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Chennai

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

ITA 2255/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

No.2255/Chny/2025: 7. This appeal relates to the levy of penalty of Rs.4,40,022/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income in respect of the addition made in the assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Seetha Balu, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Chennai

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

ITA 2254/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

No.2255/Chny/2025: 7. This appeal relates to the levy of penalty of Rs.4,40,022/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income in respect of the addition made in the assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

ITA 1899/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Rnt Associates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5221/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vishal ShahFor Respondent: 29/10/2025
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

issued, i.e. furnishing inaccurate u/s 271(1)(c) is to be issued, i.e. furnishing inaccurate details or concealment of income. details or concealment of income. 4) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the 4) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action ... Assessing Officer did not specify the precise charge—viz. viz. whether the penalty was initiated for whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars concealment of income furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. It is urged that this fundamental defect, having been raised . It is urged