← 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

Saini Co-Operative Tharift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-48(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4906/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P(2)(a)

NFAC erred in confirming the order having demand raised under Section 147 rws 144 of the Act, 1961 holdings the assessee guilty of concealment of income. The above action being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and illegal must be quashed with directions of appropriate relief. 8. We have heard the rival submissions

Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai vs. Manish Kumar Mehta, HUF, Durg

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 342/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.342/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Manish Kumar Mehta Opportunity. Swami Atmanand English Medium School, Krishna Talkies Road, Risali, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 006 Pan: Aahhm3766Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Bakliwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is initiated separately for concealment of income.” 3. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has provided relief to the assessee by observing as follows: “7.1.1. During the appellate proceedings while going through

Devendra Mohanbhai Patel, Patan vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

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

ITA 641/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaldevendra Mohanbhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/O/ Divyand Shah & Co., Ward-1, Chartered Accountants, Patan. 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Nr. Regenta, Central Antarim Hotel, Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad-380009. [Pan :Aetpp7041 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Maulik Kansara, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Maulik Kansara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271

treated as short term capital gain Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act initiated separately for concealment of income…” 5. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted

Jar Metal Industries(P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-13(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 9695/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

expression ‘suppressed the taxable income’ means that the AO had initiated the penalty proceedings for concealment of income also as the expression ‘suppressed’ means concealment. For this, he made the following submissions. “The dictionary meaning of conceal is to keep secret, not allow to be seen or noticed. The meaning ... 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

Jar Metal Industries(P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-13(2), New Delhi

ITA 9694/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1) Indore, Indore vs. Vishnu Kumar Palod, Indore

Appeals are dismissed, he would not be pressing cross-objections

ITA 741/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)

added to the total income of the assessee and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealment of income.” 3.2 The assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) reversed AO’s order and deleted the entire addition. Now, the revenue

Income Tax Officer 5(1) Indore, Indore vs. Vishnu Kumar Palod, Indore

Appeals are dismissed, he would not be pressing cross-objections

ITA 740/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)

added to the total income of the assessee and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealment of income.” 3.2 The assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) reversed AO’s order and deleted the entire addition. Now, the revenue

Income Tax Officer-5(1), Indore vs. Vishnu Kumar Palod, Indore

Appeals are dismissed, he would not be pressing cross-objections

ITA 738/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)

added to the total income of the assessee and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealment of income.” 3.2 The assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) reversed AO’s order and deleted the entire addition. Now, the revenue

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

appears that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income without specifying whether the charge is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter in notice dt.14.02.2019 (PB 84) also the assessee was not made aware of the charge ... whether against the disallowance confirmed by Hon’ble ITAT, the charge is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter atPg 11 of the penalty order AO held that the disallowance represent concealment of income and thus imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. From

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

appears that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income without specifying whether the charge is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter in notice dt.14.02.2019 (PB 84) also the assessee was not made aware of the charge ... whether against the disallowance confirmed by Hon'ble ITAT, the charge is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter atPg 11 of the penalty order AO held that the disallowance represent concealment of income and thus imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. From

Rsd Containers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

objections :- Notice without proper sanction and not in accordance with law a. The first notice u/s 148 dated 02.06.2021 with an allegation of concealment of income of more than Rs. 50 Lacs was issued for which the time limit for issuance of the notice u/s 148 was not expiring during

Mahesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(6), Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(e) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealment of income. 12. Further detailed analysis of evidences available on record i.e. bank statements and statement of affair filed it reveals that the assessee has purchased property for Rs.20,62,375/-. Again being ... Penalty proceedings us 271(1(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealment of income.” 3.2. Against the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) unit-3, Coimbatore, deleted the addition made by the AO under section

Mohd. Umar, Nuh, Mewat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Faridabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3078/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3078/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2011-12) Mohd. Umar, Village Siroli, Tehsil Punhana, Mewat, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Nuh, Palwal, Haryana 121103 Pan: Aabpu-9980-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5) ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Cgo Complex, Faridabad, Haryana 121001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 03.02.2025, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Supported By An Affidavit & Medical Records. After Perusal Of Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, But Is For The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Hence, Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Officer (AO) has initiated penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:- “I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income by furnished inaccurate particulars of his income on this account and, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income ... levied. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs CIT, 161 Taxman 340 has held that ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’ carry different connotations. 5. Thereafter, the AO vide order dated 26.06.2018 levied penalty

K.K.Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

ITA 520/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM

K.K.Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 519/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:- “9. ……….. It cannot be expected that the assessee would retain documents regarding the concealment of income. If documents for every concealment are insisted to be searched, practically the provision for block assessment would be defeated. We cannot shut our eyes ... account books and it was the practice from the very beginning. So, it is just and appropriate to presume that there was uniform concealment of income in all assessment years during the block period. There is no material on record to show that the concealment of the sales out turn

Kk Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 518/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Arun Raj S, Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM

Kk Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 517/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 499/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:- “9. ……….. It cannot be expected that the assessee would retain documents regarding the concealment of income. If documents for every K.K. Mohandas concealment are insisted to be searched, practically the provision for block assessment would be defeated. We cannot shut our eyes ... account books and it was the practice from the very beginning. So, it is just and appropriate to presume that there was uniform concealment of income in all assessment years during the block period. There is no material on record to show that the concealment of the sales out turn

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 498/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:- “9. ……….. It cannot be expected that the assessee would retain documents regarding the concealment of income. If documents for every K.K. Mohandas concealment are insisted to be searched, practically the provision for block assessment would be defeated. We cannot shut our eyes ... account books and it was the practice from the very beginning. So, it is just and appropriate to presume that there was uniform concealment of income in all assessment years during the block period. There is no material on record to show that the concealment of the sales out turn

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:- “9. ……….. It cannot be expected that the assessee would retain documents regarding the concealment of income. If documents for every K.K. Mohandas concealment are insisted to be searched, practically the provision for block assessment would be defeated. We cannot shut our eyes ... account books and it was the practice from the very beginning. So, it is just and appropriate to presume that there was uniform concealment of income in all assessment years during the block period. There is no material on record to show that the concealment of the sales out turn