← 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru” V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

learned AO initiated the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act on the basis that the Appellant had concealed the income while filing the return of income and ultimately levied penalty amounting to Rs.2,60,090/- The Appellant carried the matter before the learned ... learned AO initiated the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act on the basis that the Appellant had concealed the income while filing the return of income and ultimately levied penalty amounting to Rs.2,60,090/- The Appellant carried the matter before the learned

R V R Nagesh Legal Heir of Late Vengattarayalu Rajan, Kanchipuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward - 22(4), Tambaram

ITA 789/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.789/Chny/2025

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

defective in as much as it did not specifically clarify as to whether the penalty was being proposed to be imposed for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee argued that it is settled principle of law that the Ld.AO in its notice ... must vividly indicate as to whether the penalty was being proposed to be imposed for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It was argued that in the absence thereof the penalty notice per se would become infructuous and invalid and that therefore no consequent penalty order

Microad India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle - 16(2), Delhi

Appeals is allowed

ITA 4714/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Khanna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 165Section 195Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 193/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

under his name. 10.10 It was observed by the CIT(A) that unexplained cash deposits and credits reflected a clear case of concealment of income, falling under the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the legitimacy of these transactions ... cash deposits and amount credited in bank account. Therefore, it was clearly established that appellant had wilfully, knowingly and without reasonable cause concealed his income and thereby committed a default which was liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty order

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

under his name. 10.10 It was observed by the CIT(A) that unexplained cash deposits and credits reflected a clear case of concealment of income, falling under the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the legitimacy of these transactions ... cash deposits and amount credited in bank account. Therefore, it was clearly established that appellant had wilfully, knowingly and without reasonable cause concealed his income and thereby committed a default which was liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty order

Vikas Agarwal, Silvassa vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

under his name. 10.10 It was observed by the CIT(A) that unexplained cash deposits and credits reflected a clear case of concealment of income, falling under the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the legitimacy of these transactions ... cash deposits and amount credited in bank account. Therefore, it was clearly established that appellant had wilfully, knowingly and without reasonable cause concealed his income and thereby committed a default which was liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty order

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

under his name. 10.10 It was observed by the CIT(A) that unexplained cash deposits and credits reflected a clear case of concealment of income, falling under the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the legitimacy of these transactions ... cash deposits and amount credited in bank account. Therefore, it was clearly established that appellant had wilfully, knowingly and without reasonable cause concealed his income and thereby committed a default which was liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty order

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 189/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

under his name. 10.10 It was observed by the CIT(A) that unexplained cash deposits and credits reflected a clear case of concealment of income, falling under the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the legitimacy of these transactions ... cash deposits and amount credited in bank account. Therefore, it was clearly established that appellant had wilfully, knowingly and without reasonable cause concealed his income and thereby committed a default which was liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty order

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

under his name. 10.10 It was observed by the CIT(A) that unexplained cash deposits and credits reflected a clear case of concealment of income, falling under the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the legitimacy of these transactions ... cash deposits and amount credited in bank account. Therefore, it was clearly established that appellant had wilfully, knowingly and without reasonable cause concealed his income and thereby committed a default which was liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty order

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

under his name. 10.10 It was observed by the CIT(A) that unexplained cash deposits and credits reflected a clear case of concealment of income, falling under the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the legitimacy of these transactions ... cash deposits and amount credited in bank account. Therefore, it was clearly established that appellant had wilfully, knowingly and without reasonable cause concealed his income and thereby committed a default which was liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty order

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

under his name. 10.10 It was observed by the CIT(A) that unexplained cash deposits and credits reflected a clear case of concealment of income, falling under the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the legitimacy of these transactions ... cash deposits and amount credited in bank account. Therefore, it was clearly established that appellant had wilfully, knowingly and without reasonable cause concealed his income and thereby committed a default which was liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty order

Jigar Industries, Jamwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

In the result, question is decided against the Revenue

ITA 405/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

cable and wires and clearance of goods without invoices which resulted in earning income which is not offered for taxation and resulting in concealment of income earned over unaccounted sales. Therefore, assessing officer made addition, on account of low Gross Profit, which comes to Rs.52,09,784/-(Actual

Rahul Jain S/O Shri Rakesh Jain, Gali Kanda Wali, Noharia Bazar, Sirsa, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sirsa

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1219/CHANDI/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Rahul Jain Dcit Ward-1 (S/O Shri Rakesh Jain) Sector 20, Huda बनाम/ Vs. Gali Kanda Wali Sirsa Nohara Bazar, Sirsa. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aorpj-8009-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur(Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 30-09-2024 Confirming Penalty Of Rs.98.07 Lacs U/S 271Aab As Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 12-03- 2018. The Registry Has Noted Minor Delay Of 19 Days In The Appeal Which Stands Condoned. The Ld. Ar, Drawing Attention To The Factual Matrix, Referred To Various Judicial Decisions To Assail The Impugned

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur(Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 271ASection 274

respect to undisclosed income and thus specifying the limb in the penalty notice is not a requirement since penalty notice was for the concealment of income. The assessee failed to justify the sources of undisclosed income surrendered during search operations. The Ld. AO also mentioned that the assessee failed

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 886/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

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

discernible, as to whether the penalty levied is for furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, which renders the entire proceedings bad in law.” 7. Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice brief facts of the case that on the basis of assessment ... raised by the assessee, AO ITA Nos.884 to 886/DEL/2022 CO No.18/Del/2017 CO Nos.186 to 188/Del/2022 reached at the conclusion that the assessee has concealed its income and thereby levied a penalty of Rs.14,81,29,583/- @ 100% of minimum penalty. He submitted that aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 885/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

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

discernible, as to whether the penalty levied is for furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, which renders the entire proceedings bad in law.” 7. Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice brief facts of the case that on the basis of assessment ... raised by the assessee, AO ITA Nos.884 to 886/DEL/2022 CO No.18/Del/2017 CO Nos.186 to 188/Del/2022 reached at the conclusion that the assessee has concealed its income and thereby levied a penalty of Rs.14,81,29,583/- @ 100% of minimum penalty. He submitted that aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 884/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

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

discernible, as to whether the penalty levied is for furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, which renders the entire proceedings bad in law.” 7. Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice brief facts of the case that on the basis of assessment ... raised by the assessee, AO ITA Nos.884 to 886/DEL/2022 CO No.18/Del/2017 CO Nos.186 to 188/Del/2022 reached at the conclusion that the assessee has concealed its income and thereby levied a penalty of Rs.14,81,29,583/- @ 100% of minimum penalty. He submitted that aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 6053/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

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

discernible, as to whether the penalty levied is for furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, which renders the entire proceedings bad in law.” 7. Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice brief facts of the case that on the basis of assessment ... raised by the assessee, AO ITA Nos.884 to 886/DEL/2022 CO No.18/Del/2017 CO Nos.186 to 188/Del/2022 reached at the conclusion that the assessee has concealed its income and thereby levied a penalty of Rs.14,81,29,583/- @ 100% of minimum penalty. He submitted that aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred

Suresh Nag Yadav, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 1, Ranchi

In the result, ITA No. 08/RAN/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.08 To 12/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2016-17 Suresh Nag Yadav……………......................…...........................……….……Appellant Yadav Bhawan, Karatoli, Jharkhand - 834008. [Pan: Aafpy5311D] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. K. Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 28.11.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures & Assessment Years, All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We Proceed To Deal With Ita No. 08/Ran/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 & Our Findings Therein Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.37,56,390. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 29.11.2018 At The Business & Residential Premises Of The Assessee. In Consequence Thereof, A Notice Under Section 153A Of The Act Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.05.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,56,390/-, Including Additional Income Of Rs.1,00,000 Disclosed

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Penalty proceedings were initiated, and the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.30,900 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 3. The assessee challenged the imposition of penalty before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted that

Suresh Nag Yadav, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, ITA No. 08/RAN/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 12/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.08 To 12/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2016-17 Suresh Nag Yadav……………......................…...........................……….……Appellant Yadav Bhawan, Karatoli, Jharkhand - 834008. [Pan: Aafpy5311D] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. K. Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 28.11.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures & Assessment Years, All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We Proceed To Deal With Ita No. 08/Ran/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 & Our Findings Therein Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.37,56,390. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 29.11.2018 At The Business & Residential Premises Of The Assessee. In Consequence Thereof, A Notice Under Section 153A Of The Act Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.05.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,56,390/-, Including Additional Income Of Rs.1,00,000 Disclosed

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Penalty proceedings were initiated, and the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.30,900 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 3. The assessee challenged the imposition of penalty before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted that

Shri Yash Paul Malhotra, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

grossly erred in law in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act imposed at Rs. 17,68,888/- on alleged concealment of income of Rs. 56,26,000/- whereas assessment has been framed at income of Rs. 96,04,900/- as against returned income ... estimated one fourth disallowance for car expenses and depreciation. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) initiated in the assessment order itself for concealment of income. 3.3 Subsequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed amounting to Rs.17.68 lakhs on the ground that, had the department not conducted survey u/s 133A