← 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

Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Faceless Assessment Unit

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 408/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Ito, New Delhi, 283, Padm Punj, Siddhanth Bharuch-392001. Nagar Soceity, Gujarat Housing Vs. Board, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aebpp 3770 P Appellant Respondent : None For Assessee Assessee By : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 06/10/2025 Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None for
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

representing unexplained cash deposits. The Assessing Officer simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. 3.1. The record reveals that in response to the show cause notice for penalty, the assessee merely sought that ... case, the appellant failed to explain the facts material to the computation of total income during the penalty proceedings thus resulting in deemed concealment of income. The Appellant has failed to disclose the investment in books of account which ITA No. 408/SRT/2025 5 Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel is the basis

Late Jagdish, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Jaipur

ITA 1437/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

However, in this case there are two kinds of additions. Cash deposits in bank account were added as unexplained income. In this addition concealment of income is involved. The appellant also tried to camouflage capital gains from sale of immovable property as agricultural property sale. In this matter the appellant ... furnished inaccurate particulars of income from capital gains. Hence, in this case penalty was proposed for both "Concealment of Income" and for "Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income". Hence the AO initiated penalty proceedings for the charges of concealment and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As a result

Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (Deceased) by Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 1106/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 69Section 69A

prejudice to the above grounds, the Id NFAC/ CIT(A) also grievously erred in confirming the order levying penalty as there is neither concealment of income nor inaccurate particulars were furnished I.T.A No. 1105 & 1106/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2011-12 3 Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (deceased) By Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel

Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (Deceased) by Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 1105/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 69Section 69A

prejudice to the above grounds, the Id NFAC/ CIT(A) also grievously erred in confirming the order levying penalty as there is neither concealment of income nor inaccurate particulars were furnished I.T.A No. 1105 & 1106/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2011-12 3 Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (deceased) By Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel

Shri. Vijaysingh Madhavrao Patwardhan, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-26(1), Mumbai (Now DCIT-41(1)(1), Mumbai)

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

ITA 4993/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

capital gain @10%. The ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings 2 Shri Vijaysingh Madhavrao Patwardhan u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. AO then passed the penalty order dated 27.08.2015, u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, thereby

Ganpat Thakur (Legal Heir of Late Shri Balaram Gopinath Thakur), Raigad vs. I.T.O., Ward-28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1955/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

inaccurate particulars of income". P a g e | 3 ITA NO. 1954 & 1955/mum/2025. 3. BECAUSE, the AO has erred in initiating penalty for "concealment of income" but levying penalty amounting to Rs.45,18,148/- on the ground that the assessee had filed "Inaccurate particulars of income" amounting to Rs.152

Ganpat Thakur (Legal Heir of Late Shri Balaram Gopinath Thakur), Raigad vs. I.T.O., Ward-28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1954/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

inaccurate particulars of income". P a g e | 3 ITA NO. 1954 & 1955/mum/2025. 3. BECAUSE, the AO has erred in initiating penalty for "concealment of income" but levying penalty amounting to Rs.45,18,148/- on the ground that the assessee had filed "Inaccurate particulars of income" amounting to Rs.152

Champa Lal Mehta, Sanchore vs. ITO Ward-2, Jalore

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

ITA 598/JODH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

these bills against these purchases, and the purchase billsare recorded in the books along with the related sales. Thus, the assessee has neither concealed any income nor furnished any wrong facts. Meaning thereby that the Ld. AO has imposed penalty only on estimated basis based on 3rd party information received ... levied. 3. It is evident from the record that the AO failed to prove the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of incomeon part of the assessee and therefore, it is unjustified to levy of penalty of Rs. 67,200/- u/s 271(1)(C) on the estimated basiswith

Dilipsinh Ranjitsinh Chauhan, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

In the result, Ground No. 1 relating to reopening is not adjudicated, and Ground No

ITA 1542/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

against the returned income of Rs.1,30,000/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 2.5 The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the reopening itself was invalid, as there

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 890/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

though not fully accepted, was bona fide and was even partly upheld by appellate fora. In the absence of any material to demonstrate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the essential ingredients for invoking penalty provisions are conspicuously absent. The penalty order, in our view, is a mechanical ... Officer did not ultimately accept its allowability. The assessee stressed that merely making a claim which is later disallowed does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 26. While these arguments were under consideration, the Tribunal adjudicated upon the quantum appeal of the assessee. Vide order

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 889/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 37Section 69ASection 69C

though not fully accepted, was bona fide and was even partly upheld by appellate fora. In the absence of any material to demonstrate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the essential ingredients for invoking penalty provisions are conspicuously absent. The penalty order, in our view, is a mechanical ... Officer did not ultimately accept its allowability. The assessee stressed that merely making a claim which is later disallowed does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 26. While these arguments were under consideration, the Tribunal adjudicated upon the quantum appeal of the assessee. Vide order

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 888/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

though not fully accepted, was bona fide and was even partly upheld by appellate fora. In the absence of any material to demonstrate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the essential ingredients for invoking penalty provisions are conspicuously absent. The penalty order, in our view, is a mechanical ... Officer did not ultimately accept its allowability. The assessee stressed that merely making a claim which is later disallowed does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 26. While these arguments were under consideration, the Tribunal adjudicated upon the quantum appeal of the assessee. Vide order

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 872/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai 'F' Bench M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited Summary Of Penalty Appeals Sr. No. Nature Of Addition/ Disallowance Ay 2011-12 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2013-14 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2015-16 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2017-18 U/S 271Aab Ay 2018-19 U/S 271Aab (Amt In Inr) Total Addition Made U/S 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 37Section 69ASection 69C

though not fully accepted, was bona fide and was even partly upheld by appellate fora. In the absence of any material to demonstrate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the essential ingredients for invoking penalty provisions are conspicuously absent. The penalty order, in our view, is a mechanical ... Officer did not ultimately accept its allowability. The assessee stressed that merely making a claim which is later disallowed does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 26. While these arguments were under consideration, the Tribunal adjudicated upon the quantum appeal of the assessee. Vide order

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 871/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

though not fully accepted, was bona fide and was even partly upheld by appellate fora. In the absence of any material to demonstrate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the essential ingredients for invoking penalty provisions are conspicuously absent. The penalty order, in our view, is a mechanical ... Officer did not ultimately accept its allowability. The assessee stressed that merely making a claim which is later disallowed does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 26. While these arguments were under consideration, the Tribunal adjudicated upon the quantum appeal of the assessee. Vide order

Suman Chhabra, Jammu and Kashmir vs. Ward 1(1), Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir

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

ITA 191/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 191/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 147Section 250Section 270A

total income of Rs.25.90 lakhs. 4.1 Penalty u/s 270A has been initiated for misreporting of income leading to concealment of income and in absence of any representation or explanation in response to such penalty, notices issued on four different dates 07.02.2022, 04.04.2022, 08.08.2022 and lastly 16.08.2022 the AO has imposed

Basantilal Tarba, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-3(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.512/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Bansntilal Tarba Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), बनाम/ 429/1023, Sundarnagar, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Ahimsa Circle, Bhilwara, Surat-395 001 Rajasthan- 311 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afipt 1037 P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessment order, had been made “for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”, whereas the penalty has ultimately been levied on altogether different charge of “concealment of income”; 5.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law since ... notice u/s 274 had been issued in mechanical manner without intimating the specific charge of “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”; 6.0 The Ld. AO, before levying the penalty/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.24,05,63,853/- ought to have considered the bona fide explanation, existence

Mohamed Akbar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-10(3), Chennai

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1909/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymohamed Akbar, I.T.O., 2/2 1St St., Gf, Apt No. 2, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 10(3), Jamalia Perambur High Road, Chennai. Chennai-12 Pan No. Afepa 3815 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

assessee under the head capital gains. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act for concealment of income. Subsequently, the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 18/01/2022 for the assessment year under consideration. During the penalty proceedings ... fact that the assessee had unitilised income in his Capital Gains Accounts Scheme would have gone unnoticed. Therefore, this is a case of concealment of income by the assessee and hence, attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.” The Assessing Officer also placed reliance on the decision

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1217/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

resolution ITA Nos.1215 to 1217/Chny/2025 (AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte. Ltd. :: 14 :: was not due to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and therefore, it was not liable to penalty. In our considered view, on the given facts before us, this decision

Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1216/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

resolution ITA Nos.1215 to 1217/Chny/2025 (AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte. Ltd. :: 14 :: was not due to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and therefore, it was not liable to penalty. In our considered view, on the given facts before us, this decision

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1215/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

resolution ITA Nos.1215 to 1217/Chny/2025 (AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte. Ltd. :: 14 :: was not due to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and therefore, it was not liable to penalty. In our considered view, on the given facts before us, this decision