← 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

Bhupendrabhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Anand

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

ITA 1005/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

including agricultural income of Rs.1,72,560/- for rate purposes, and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for concealment of income. 5. In appeal, the learned CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee had filed Form 35 but failed to upload or submit any supporting documents, written

Hiteshi Leasing and Housing Pvt Ltd, New Delho vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

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

ITA 4620/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhiteshi Leasing & Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 1, Yogi Associates, Faridabad. E – 335, East Of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aaach8298J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pushpdeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon-3 [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 04.081.2024 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(A) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A), While Passing The Order Erred In: A. Passing The Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 153A Despite The Fact The Assessee Was Not Searched & The Assessee Was Issued Notice Under Section 153C On 29.1 1.2013. This Is A Jurisdictional Error

For Appellant: Shri Pushpdeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

issue, to ascertain if the seized material is incriminating in nature, may vary according to the nature of alleged act of misreporting or concealment of income, its source, investment etc.. Thus it is in accordance with the nature of allegations the seized material has to be examined and then

Kavita Balraj Lanjile, Pashan vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1758/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1758/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kavita Balraj Lanjile, Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Pune. Flat No.401, Bldg. No.A-2, Shivranjan Tower, Someshwarwadi, Pune- 411008. Pan : Aaqpl5138C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.01.2024 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Having Income From Profession & Business Income In The Shape Of Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firm & Also Agricultural Income. The Assessee Furnished Her Return Of Income On 17.07.2014 Disclosing Professional Income, Income From Other

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction either regarding furnishing of inaccurate particular or concealment of income rather impugned penalty was levied for both the alleged defaults. Ld. AR further produced copy of notice issued

Ambalal Gorakh Choudhari, Prakasha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dhule

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

ITA 1422/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1422/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ambalal Gorakh Choudhari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Dhule. Legal Heir Anita Ambalal Chaudhari, Mukteshwar Mandir, At Post Prakasha, Taluka Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar- 425409. Pan : Afrpc1304D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Rathi Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Gurugram [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Assessing Officer & The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Making/Confirming Additions Of Rs. 1020740/- To Returned Income U/S.69A Of The Act, As Said Section Is Applicable Only When In Any Financial Year The Assessee Is Found To Be Owner Of Any Money, Bullion, Jewellery Or Any Other

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep RathiFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 148Section 69A

lapse of 04 years from end of relevant assessment year. In the absence of any conclusive evidence in possession of Ld ITO regarding concealment of income exceeding Rs. 1 Lakh, the extended period of 6 years cannot be allowed to Ld. ITO and entire assessment proceedings be quashed and additions

Aruneswar Mukhopadhyay, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1057/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1057/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Aruneswar Mukhopadhyay,……………….……Appellant 64, Rajni Mukherjee Road, Sahapur, Kolkata-700038, West Bengal [Pan:Adspm1879J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..Respondent Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 14, 2025 O R D E R

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)

dated 08.02.2024 was passed to allow the assessee credit of tax. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) and 271F was initiated for concealment of income and non-filing of ITR of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... Rs.36,41,000/-. He, therefore, pleaded that the ld. Assessing Officer has rightly added the difference amount of Rs.5,98,336/- as concealment of income. 8. I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee entered into

Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Sivaganga vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1943/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1943/Chny/2024 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15 Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Income Tax Officer, 78 Mgr Salai, Vs. Ward-1 Soodamanipuram, Karaikudi. Karaikudi, Sivaganga – 630 002. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaapx-3145-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

Section 245(C) was filed by the appellant before the Settlement Commission later. On the date of lodging the prosecution, the finding of concealment of income or imposition of the penalty of more than Rs. 50,000/- has not been recorded by the ITAT. Nothing has been brought on record

ACIT-19(1), Mumbai vs. Manohar Kanungo, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 685/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary: A.Y. : 2009-10 C.O. No. 75/Mum/2025 : A.Y. : 2009-10 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 685/M/25)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee and penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income. 4. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has sustained the said findings of the AO and thereafter, on further ... from a fundamental defect in as much as the AO failed to specify the particular charge - whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for "concealment of income" or for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." It is well-settled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohammad Farhan

Karnal Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd, Karnal vs. ACIT Circle, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6334/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwalआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6334/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Karnal Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd. Acit, Meerut Road, Karnal, Vs. Circle, Haryana. Ff, Ayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Aaffk9357F Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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 ... recorded any clear cut satisfaction as to whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." 7 12. As is evident upon a perusal of the impugned order, the Tribunal, in concluding that

Raghavan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 1776/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1776/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raghavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3503, Bay View House, Hiraranan, Non Corporate Circle 22(1). 5/63, Omr, Egattur, Thazambur, Tambaram, Chennai. Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu. 600 130 [Pan:Ajjpv9178L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(b)Section 274

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने

M.Lakhamsi& Co., Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4304/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Vajani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

have concealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.". These are both limbs of the notice, that is, "concealment of income" and for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income". Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the AO has initiated penalty on both the limbs, that is, concealment ... inaccurate particulars of income. He did not strike off the irrelevant portion and has not shown, whether he has initiated penalty on concealment of income or on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this situation, the assessee was not aware about the exact nature of penalty and correct charge, whether

Mukon Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1152/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivashtav,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act so as to categorically give a finding that the assessee was either defaulter for concealment of income or for filing inaccurate particulars thereof. In the subsequent appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty. 4. Before us,the ld. DR has contended that ... have concealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.". These are both limbs of the notice, that is, "concealment of income" and for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income". Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the AO has initiated penalty on both the limbs, that is, concealment

Maruti Nivrutti Bhujbal, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(1), Pune

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

ITA 485/PUN/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

regard. Briefly stating facts of the case is that it was reopened for assessment u/s 147 on the basis of certain information about concealment of income related to capital gains on sale of immovable property and assessment completed u/s 143(3) read with sec. 147 of the Act by considering

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessment order for the initiation of penalty A.O. stated “penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 issued for concealment of income by filing of inaccurate particulars of income" b) Notice u/s 274 Further in the penalty notice u/s 274 read with section ... printed notice without striking off the unnecessary portions of the notice. If the Ld. A.O. was of the view that the assessee has concealed the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income then he should have deleted or not mentioned the other limb for imposition of penalty i.e. concealing

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1453/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessment order for the initiation of penalty A.O. stated “penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 issued for concealment of income by filing of inaccurate particulars of income" b) Notice u/s 274 Further in the penalty notice u/s 274 read with section ... printed notice without striking off the unnecessary portions of the notice. If the Ld. A.O. was of the view that the assessee has concealed the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income then he should have deleted or not mentioned the other limb for imposition of penalty i.e. concealing

Jap Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Previously ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1609/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

income at Rs. 3,94,76,330/-. Further, the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and vide order dated 24.03.2017 levied penalty @ 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. Meanwhile, the assessee filed appeal before ITAT against quantum

Mr. Arumugasamy Vasantha Vikas, Virdhunagar vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-4, Madurai

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

ITA 2108/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Rama Krishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

defective since the Assessing Officer has failed to delete the inappropriate words in the notice relating to whether the notice is issued for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. By raising the aforesaid Ground No.3, the assessee has assailed the action of the Ld.CIT ... fault on which the penalty is proposed to be levied i.e. whether the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income or have concealed the income, which omission according to assessee vitiates the penalty imposed on assessee and therefore, Ld CIT(A) erred in not cancelling the penalty imposed

Mr. Arumugasamy Vasantha Vikas, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-4., Madurai, Mudrai

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

ITA 2107/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Rama Krishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

defective since the Assessing Officer has failed to delete the inappropriate words in the notice relating to whether the notice is issued for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. By raising the aforesaid Ground No.3, the assessee has assailed the action of the Ld.CIT ... fault on which the penalty is proposed to be levied i.e. whether the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income or have concealed the income, which omission according to assessee vitiates the penalty imposed on assessee and therefore, Ld CIT(A) erred in not cancelling the penalty imposed

Vaibhav Bhargava, Thane vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai-27, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 270A

that "on examination of the records, it is found that the Assessing Officer had in the assessment order established that the Assessee had concealed his income by filing inaccurate particulars". There is no such finding in the order of assessment. The Principal Commissioner seems to have distorted the order ... Commissioner is to that extent perverse. 15. In our view, in the absence of any finding of the Assessing Officer with regard to concealment of income or with regard to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the Commissioner clearly erred in holding that omission to record satisfaction to initiate penalty

Crystal Thermotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 78/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

that the AO in the show cause notice for levying penalty did not specifically pointed out as to whether the penalty was w.r.t. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income. Accordingly, the show cause notice was claimed to be defective on which no penalty could be imposed ... defective in as much as the said notice did not specifically state as to whether it was for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. The assessee has placed reliance on various case laws in support of the contention that if certain show cause notice

Zaimur Rahman, East Champaran vs. Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 321/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 68Section 69A

proceeding. 14. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 15. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271F of the Act for non filing