“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Spl Shelters Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1273/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

group case of Shri Ram Prasath Reddy on 27.11.2020 alleging that document found in the search process contained details of concealment of income by the assessee with respect to acquisition of immovable property from M/s Gateway Office Parks Pvt. Ltd. during the previous year 2017-18. Accordingly, the AO issued

Shriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1173/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

Spl Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1172/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

Subhash Silk Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Cirle -11(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing

ITA 3385/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesubhash Silk Mills Limited Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax G-15, Prem Kutir, 177 Marine (Osd), Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai Drive, Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan: Aaacs9966J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Govind PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

year, the assessee was otherwise liable to file the return under Section 139(1) of the Act, which he failed to do. The concealment of income was detected by the revenue authorities, and the assessee did not file the return voluntarily. Even in the return filed pursuant to the notice

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited, West Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax/ National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

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

erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 19,66,59,439 on the Appellant for concealment of income in respect of alleged excess claim of long-term capital loss amounting to Rs.60,61,31,728. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts ... upholding levy of penalty for concealment of income in the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, not appreciating that in the assessment order passed for the subject assessment year, penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 4. That the CIT(A) erred

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Giriraj Enterprises, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 553/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

sound basis for addition to the returned Income. The fact of surrender per se cannot, lead to the conclusion that there was a concealment of income. The factual a surrounding the surrender of income also, in our considered view, do not establish that there was a concealment of income

M/S Giriraj Enterprises, Pune vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

C.R. Textile Mills, Salem vs. ITO, Circle-1, Salem

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

ITA 1361/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1361/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the A.O had issued notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income however, the penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it was argued that the C.R. Textile Mills :- 3 -: penalty is not sustainable ... furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. AR pointed out that the notice was issued for concealment of income, but the penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars therefore penalty cannot be sustained. It was further submitted that the sundry creditors are genuine and that the payments were made

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5423/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

absence of any 'incriminating' material. (v) It was further submitted that during the course of search, no incriminating material was unearthed which showed concealment of income. The seized e-mail of Mr. Banerjee dated 02.03.2016 (page no. 170 of paperbook of AY 2016-17) which was sent at the initial

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3937/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai vs. Mahadhan Agritech Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3569/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)--50, Mumai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Knwon As Smartech Technologies Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai-50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2228/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartech Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai.50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

sale of the impugned land. Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated on 05.01.2017 for filing inaccurate particulars of Income and concealing the income. The assessee did not agitate the assessment order. The Ld.AO levied the penalty of Rs.26,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) Against the penalty ... taxmann.com 588 (Delhi) the head note of which reads Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Conditions Precedent) Assessment year 2003-04 Assessing Officer while framing assessment order mentioned that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) initiated had furnished inaccurate particulars

Aditya Gupta, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central) - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1503/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1503/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Aditya Gupta Pcit (Central)-1, 8/48, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. Room No.338, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Amzpg2185M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 54F

After assessments were completed, a raid was carried out, at the Nursing Home of the respondent- assessee on 7.12.2004. Some incriminating documents of concealment of income, were discovered. The assessee was not present at the time of inspection. He appeared before the AO on 12.12.1994 and surrendered the proposed additions

Jeevan Javerchand Rathod, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3592/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Haridas Bhat

Section 133(6)Section 250

records, which the appellant failed to disprove. Since the appellant did not disclose the amount voluntarily, penalty proceedings /s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income were righty initiated.” 5. We have perused the material on record including the paper book containing pages 1 to 10. While the confirmation from

DCIT, Circle-1, Durgapur vs. Debeanjana Hard Coke Private Limited, Hetedoba

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 564/KOL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2025

Bench: the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 10Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts

Ashoka Tubewell Boring Engineering & Construction, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-2, Patna

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

ITA 90/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajhariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

there is no perversity in the order passed by the Id. AO as the Id. AO has made out a specific case for concealment of income and imposed the penalty accordingly. The Id. AR vehemently submitted before us that the penalty order passed by the Id. AO is erroneous ... response to notice u/s 153A of the Act which has also been accepted by the Id. AO. Then there is no question of concealment of income or/ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as has been held by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Brahmaputra metallics Limited (supra

Bipin Gopalbhai Patel, Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 279/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

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

Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 12 lakhs as unexplained income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices of hearing, which remained uncomplied with and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed