← 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

Amish Pravinchandra Vyas, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the question is answered in the negative, i

ITA 1924/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the assessee appeal.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

Rs.20,08,170/- being unaccounted cash purchase of property and therefore penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated for “concealment of income” in the assessment order. However in the penalty notice dated 29-11-2017, the Ld. A.O. striked off “concealed particulars of income” but ticked ... Officer passed penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 17-08-2020 imposing penalty of Rs.6,20,524/- for the alleged default of “concealment of income”, not for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed

Shreyans Anilkumar Shah, Na vs. Arivs.CIT(A), Ward 5, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 786/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.786/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shreyans Anilkumar Shah The Ito बनाम 504, Rushabh Residency Ward-5 / Maneklal Road Navsari – 396 445 V/S. Nr. Telephone Exchnage Navsari – 396 445 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aiqps 6441 P (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 16/05/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2010-11. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Shreyans Anilkumar Shah Vs. Cit(A) Asst. Year : 2010-11

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

income of the assessee @15% of the gross receipts, yet, it is not a case, wherein it is proved that the assessee has concealed his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had duly shown the commission income, but at a lesser rate. He, therefore, relying upon ... estimated at a higher rate, the same could not be held to be a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 5. We find force in the aforesaid contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The impugned addition was made

Achala Punja, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2630/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

difference in appreciation of the evidence and interpretation of the provisions of section 54 of the Act, and cannot be construed as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the fact that

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

cover all the assessment years within the block period, the Appellate Tribunal had found that inasmuch as there was no evidence regarding concealment of income for the period from 1996-97 to 2000-01, the assessments for those years could not be re-visited based on the evidence that

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

cover all the assessment years within the block period, the Appellate Tribunal had found that inasmuch as there was no evidence regarding concealment of income for the period from 1996-97 to 2000-01, the assessments for those years could not be re-visited based on the evidence that

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

cover all the assessment years within the block period, the Appellate Tribunal had found that inasmuch as there was no evidence regarding concealment of income for the period from 1996-97 to 2000-01, the assessments for those years could not be re-visited based on the evidence that

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

cover all the assessment years within the block period, the Appellate Tribunal had found that inasmuch as there was no evidence regarding concealment of income for the period from 1996-97 to 2000-01, the assessments for those years could not be re-visited based on the evidence that

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

cover all the assessment years within the block period, the Appellate Tribunal had found that inasmuch as there was no evidence regarding concealment of income for the period from 1996-97 to 2000-01, the assessments for those years could not be re-visited based on the evidence that

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

cover all the assessment years within the block period, the Appellate Tribunal had found that inasmuch as there was no evidence regarding concealment of income for the period from 1996-97 to 2000-01, the assessments for those years could not be re-visited based on the evidence that

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

cover all the assessment years within the block period, the Appellate Tribunal had found that inasmuch as there was no evidence regarding concealment of income for the period from 1996-97 to 2000-01, the assessments for those years could not be re-visited based on the evidence that

Jothi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 2569/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

cover all the assessment years within the block period, the Appellate Tribunal had found that inasmuch as there was no evidence regarding concealment of income for the period from 1996-97 to 2000-01, the assessments for those years could not be re-visited based on the evidence that

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Section 132Section 254(2)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted by a new section. Under the existing section, penalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing the return or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance tax on the taxpayer's own estimate

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 1 1, Vadodara vs. Unimed Technologies Limited, Panchmahal

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 279/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43A

company consistently disclosed the complete particulars of such expenses in its books of account and in its Audit Reports. Therefore, there is no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee company. Thus Ld. CIT(A) following Supreme Court Judgment in the case of the Reliance ... have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is not the case of the assessee, there is concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of the Foreign Exchange Fluctuation loss claimed by the assessee. Though the assessee claims that provisions of Section

Mahaveer Singh, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

section 270A are reproduced as under: Section 271(1)(c) [Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271. (1) If the (Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that nay person- (b)……………… or (c) has concealed the particulars

Bhairav Tube (India), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5494/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

circumstances, under the garb of penalty proceedings, there ought not to be an occasion that such material again be labelled as amounting to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. If such approach is accepted, it would 6 Bhairav Tube (India) result in taking away the very ... circumstances under the garb of penalty proceedings their ought not to be an occasion that such material again be leveled as amounting to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, in absence of such clear position of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars

M/S Pumarth Infrastructure Private Limited, Indore vs. The Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 4(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 766/IND/2024[2009 -2010]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- alleging concealment of income despite the fact that the Assessee has disclosed income before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. c. The order passed u/s 250 on 30/08/2024 ... appellant has contested that the Ld.AO has erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- alleging concealment of income despite the fact that assessee has disclosed income before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. I have considered the facts of the case, material evidences

M/S Pumarth Infrastructure Private Limited, Indore vs. The Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 765/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- alleging concealment of income despite the fact that the Assessee has disclosed income before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. C. The order passed u/s 250 on 30/08/2024 ... appellant has contested that the Ld.AO has erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- alleging concealment of income despite the fact that assessee has disclosed income before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. I have considered the facts of the case, material evidences

M/S Pumarth Infrastructure, Indore vs. The Asst Commissioner If Income Tax Circle 4(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 757/IND/2024[2010 -11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- alleging concealment of income despite the fact that the Assessee has disclosed income before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. c. The order passed u/s 250 on 30/08/2024 ... appellant has contested that the Ld.AO has erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- alleging concealment of income despite the fact that assessee has disclosed income before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. I have considered the facts of the case, material evidences

Kapil Khandelwal, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 335/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

specify under which limb penalty was sought to be imposed i.e.. whether on account of concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and consequently, the penalty order dated 17.03.2022 passed by Faceless Assessing Officer deserved to be quashed. 3.1 BECAUSE, even on merits ... levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee has not 1 A.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal been found to have concealed his income as erroneously alleged in the penalty order. 3.2 BECAUSE mere disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gain of Rs. 20,64,939/-claimed

J K Construction Company, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 137/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blejk Construction Company Acit Circle 1, Bikaner 304, Royal Plaza, Sansar Chandra Road Jaipur (Raj.) Pan No. Aaefj1676P Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri P.M. Mirdha, Addl. Cit (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The Nfac/ Cit (A)] Dated 17.01.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2018- 19 Challenging Therein The Order Of The Cit (A) Sustaining The Trading Addition Amounting To Rs. 22,52,778/- On Estimate Basis.

Section 115B

under Section 115BBE of the Act, in our view since the addition has been made on estimate basis 6 without pointing out any concealment of income or deliberate tax evasion on the part of the Assessee and therefore, the provision of Section 115BBE of the Act would not be applicable