“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

Kwality Overseas Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

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

ITA 553/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 553/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 Kwality Overseas Private Limited 863, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana बनाम The DCIT Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AABCK6381J अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07/08/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)Section 69Section 69A

making the above additions to the returned income, and further initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) for concealment of income and non-compliance with statutory notices. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed

United Steel Allied Industries Pvt Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, M Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad, SV, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 274

Hotels and Resorts (P.) Ltd., [2021] 124 taxman.com 249 wherein it was held that, “in absence of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer about concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee, which is sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings, such proceedings

Kanodia Technoplast Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act is

ITA 1355/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 132ASection 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 270Section 270ASection 274Section 37

order dated 27-02-2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under : “Appellant’s only contention that there is no concealment of income is misplaced because under new provisions u/s 270A of the Act, such requirement is done away with. Form

Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited, Vijayawada vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

Dustven Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1153/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ajith VFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessment completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. The AO issued notice under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 for concealment of income. The assessee explained that it suffered huge financial losses because of cancellation of coal block allocations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Orders placed ... being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded on account of concealment of income. 4. The assessee appealed before the ld. CIT-A. It was argued that there was no concealment. The income was already reported in the tax audit report. Return was filed in response

Income-Tax Officer-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vibgyor Texotech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4705/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

section 271(1)(c) suffered from the vice of vagueness inasmuch as it did not specify whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was contended that such a defect rendered the penalty proceedings void ab initio ... vice of vagueness in view of the fact that the notice does not state whether notice issued for fling inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income, the notice u/s. 274 and consequent proceedings are legally invalid. The appellant has submitted as under: The notice of penalty is not clear whether

Ramdev Choudhary, Ajmer vs. ITO, WD-2(2), Ajmer

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

ITA 895/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Katariya, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

income was detected as a result of re-opening of assessment. Hence, it is clear that the assessee has concealed his income by not voluntarily filing return of income for A.Y 2013-14. Therefore, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income.’’ 2.2 In first appeal

Vipin Pansari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 683/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

assessee is taken at Rs. 7,45,623/- including return income of his wife at Rs. 3,91,159/- Further assessee has concealed his income and therefore, it is fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I. T Act. Accordingly penalty proceedings ... Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income are hereby initiated’’ 7.3 During the course of appeal proceedings, no reply has been filed by the appellant in spite of sufficient opportunities provided as detailed above. I have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and considered the facts

Bhagvan Sahay Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 524/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: ShriKapil Banthia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)

Issued necessary forms and challans. (i) Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices issued and (ii) for concealment of income,penalty proceedings u/s271(1)(c) and (iii)as the assessee has not filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year, therefore penalty proceedings

Jhutha Ram Meena, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 523/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gogra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 69

whereas in ITR filed u/s 148, the assessee declared total income at Rs. 3,27,710/-. Meaning thereby, the assessee has concealed his income to the tune of Rs. 60,200/- [327710-267510]. Therefore, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income to the extent ... Hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately for concealment of income. Further, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act shall also be initiated separately.’’ In first appeal, theld.CIT(A) has also pased

Star Ceramics, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chitradurga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1064/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala & Shri Hemasundar Rao P., CAsFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69A

with the notices issued and that the entire funds were ultimately transferred to another party, clearly demonstrating the absence of any intention of concealment of income. XIII The learned Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's claim regarding the role of M/s Entire Page

M/S. Gyanchand Poddar HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1391/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Taxmann.com 376 (Cal), to hold that since all relevant material was duly disclosed by the assessee hence penalty cannot be levied for concealment of income. In light of this discussion the impugned penalty is deleted. 3.1 Since, the assessee has got relief on merit hence the legal challenge

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Dharmendra Singh, Kolkata

Appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1433/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon’Ble Itat Received From The Office Of The Pr. Cit, Central-2, Kolkata 26.06.2024 Filed 2Nd Appeal U/S 253 Before The Hon’Ble Itat, Kolkata

For Respondent: “Dates

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

added to the total income of the assessee. Further, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately for concealment of income.” 3.1 Thereafter, the Ld. DR relied on the case of Swati Bajaj reported in 139 taxmann.com 352 (Cal). 3.2 Per contra, the Ld. AR took

M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy, . Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 71/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Vs. Dcit, Limited, Dobiriyal Complex Gole Central Circle-1, Lucknow Market Mahanagar, Lucknow Pan: Aaccj0525G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 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)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.11.2024 Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 4.06.2019, Passed Under Section 271(1)(C). The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Both Law & Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Penalty Of 2,20,41,900/- Levied By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That: A. The Appellant Has Neither Concealed The Particulars Of Its Income Nor Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income; B. There Was No Failure On The Part Of The Appellant In Truly & Fully Disclosing All Material Facts C. Mere Disallowance Or Rejection Of The Claim Or Stand Taken By The Appellant Based On Reasonable Interpretation Of The Law Is Not Sufficient To Attract Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) 3. The Amount Of Penalty Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Invalid, Excessive & Unreasonable.”

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

grounds that there had not been any real finding of fact in the matter that could visit the assessee with a penalty of concealment of income, because the additions had been made only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Accordingly, it was pleaded that one more opportunity

Kobsai Hospitallities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 291/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

also issued a notice under section 271(1)(c) asking the assessee to explain why penalty should not be levied for concealment of income. The ld. AO records that three notices were issued to the assessee, but the assessee did not make any compliance to the said notices

Kobsai Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 290/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Khodiyar Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3029/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us Is Whether The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Was Justified In Restricting The Penalty To The Tax Sought To Be Evaded On An Addition Of ₹5,59,500/–, As Against The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer On The Entire

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

purchases. 4. The Assessing Officer nevertheless proceeded to levy penalty with reference to the entire disallowance of ₹1,86,50,000/–, alleging concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The learned CIT(A), upon appeal, examined the matter afresh. He noted that penalty 3 Khodiyar Impex under section

Dinesh Jat, Sagar vs. CIT(A), NFAC

ITA 196/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

income of the assessee and assessed his income at that amount. He separately initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 4. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A). Several grounds were raised before

Dinesh Jat, Sagar vs. CIT (A), Sagar

ITA 195/JAB/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

G.S.Express Pvt.Ltd, Lucknow vs. DCIT-CC-2, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is held to be partly allowed

ITA 633/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Private Ltd., C-877 Vs. The D. Commissioner Of Income Mahanagar, Lucknow Tax, P.K. Complex, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aaccg5655J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Imposing A Penalty Under Section 271B On 29.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-3, Lucknow Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Considering That The Show Cause Notice U/S 271B Of 1. T. Act Dated 31.12.2019, Did Not Specify That Whether The Penalty Is For Failure To Get Accounts Audited Or Failure To Furnish The Report & Thus Non Striking Of Irrelevant Clause Renders The Penalty Notice Invalid As Also The Consequential Penalty Order As Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Above 2-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- U/S 2718 Of 1. T. Act, Without Appreciating That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Delay In Audit & Obtaining Report U/S 44Ab Of It Act As Due To Search & Seizure On 01.02.2018 The Entire Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing. 3-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Did Not Appreciate That Books Of Accounts & Related Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing & Only After Obtaining Copy Of Seized Documents

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 132Section 139Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Court had held that, ‘concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income carried different connotations’. It was further argued that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering ... visited with penalty on account of both defaults. It was, therefore, submitted that his reliance on case laws, which discussed the difference between concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was totally misplaced in a situation where he was guilty of committing both the defaults as envisaged