← 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

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2616/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

case, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant since there was no concealment of income on the part of the appellant, and therefore, the consequential penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs.166

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

case, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant since there was no concealment of income on the part of the appellant, and therefore, the consequential penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs.166

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2614/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

case, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant since there was no concealment of income on the part of the appellant, and therefore, the consequential penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs.166

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2613/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

case, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant since there was no concealment of income on the part of the appellant, and therefore, the consequential penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs.166

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2612/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

case, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant since there was no concealment of income on the part of the appellant, and therefore, the consequential penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs.166

Spice of Life Hotels and Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7704/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the levy of penalty by the Id. AO was on account of alleged concealment of income alone. 1.4. The Appellant prays that the penalty levied be deleted. 2. GROUND NO. 2: GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement

Spice of Life Hotels and Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7703/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the levy of penalty by the Id. AO was on account of alleged concealment of income alone. 1.4. The Appellant prays that the penalty levied be deleted. 2. GROUND NO. 2: GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement

Jadav Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2911/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2911/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

assessee company. In addition to this, penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act 1961, is also initiated for concealment of income separately. (Rs. 1,48,00,000/-) 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee contended that

Dredging Corporation of India Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the appellant company is allowed

ITA 634/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the CIT(A), Visakhapatnam on the following grounds : (i) Sale of scrap amounting to Rs.3,49,99,784/- (ii) Sale of empties amounting to Rs.8,65,345/- (iii) Sale of waste oil amounting to Rs.17,03,358/- (iv) Recovery towards leased quarter amounting to Rs.3,30,665/- (v) Exchange differences amounting to Rs.58,96,009/- (vi) Condemned machinery scrapped sale amounting to Rs.2,69,23,862/- (vii) Staff car recoveries amounting to Rs.61,560/- (viii) Sale of tender documents amounting to Rs.2,94,250

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

Revenue is ambiguous, hence not valid, because the relevant limb for which penalty was proposed to be levied, i.e. whether for “concealment of income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” was not specified by ticking the appropriate limb or by striking off the irrelevant limb. During the hearing

Nirman, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1509/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalnirman, Vs. 35, Vasantkunj Society, New Dcit, Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad [Pan :Aabfn 7155 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 69A

added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for concealment of income. (Disallowance of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-)” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Srimad Virat Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Muttam, Kadapa vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

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

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: | 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/08/2023 & 21/10/2025 Respectively For The A.Y.2016-17.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate
Section 253(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam, Cuddapah vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Tirupathi

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

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

careful examination of the assessment order dated 18.12.2018, we find that no satisfaction whatsoever has been recorded by the Ld. AO regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as required under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We further observe that ... legal position noticed above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has to form his own opinion and record his satisfaction of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is also clear that such satisfaction

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Nutech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8693/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reach to a conclusion that the assessee be held liable for a penalty, on the count of furnishing inaccurate particulars or there was concealment of income, is the issue. (A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12) Shri Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudhary vs. ITO 16. It is well settled that the condition precedent ... were required to be invoked, to levy a penalty on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars or had concealed its income. Further, in the assessment proceedings leading to the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Nutech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8692/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reach to a conclusion that the assessee be held liable for a penalty, on the count of furnishing inaccurate particulars or there was concealment of income, is the issue. (A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12) Shri Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudhary vs. ITO 16. It is well settled that the condition precedent ... were required to be invoked, to levy a penalty on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars or had concealed its income. Further, in the assessment proceedings leading to the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Netech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8691/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reach to a conclusion that the assessee be held liable for a penalty, on the count of furnishing inaccurate particulars or there was concealment of income, is the issue. (A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12) Shri Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudhary vs. ITO 16. It is well settled that the condition precedent ... were required to be invoked, to levy a penalty on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars or had concealed its income. Further, in the assessment proceedings leading to the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section

Pba Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4212/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR a/w
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

with effect from 1-4-2001. 2. Under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is determined based on the "amount of tax sought to be evaded" which has been defined inter-alia

Pba Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4211/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR a/w
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

with effect from 1-4-2001. 2. Under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is determined based on the "amount of tax sought to be evaded" which has been defined inter-alia

DCIT, Delhi vs. Aster Tradelinks Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6254/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 153(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

record the mandatory satisfaction as required under the law and further failed to specify the exact charge, i.e., whether the penalty was for 'concealment of income' or for 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income', thereby rendering the initiation and levy of penalty invalid and void in law. 2. That having ... cross objection wherein it is claimed that the AO had failed to specify the exact charge i.e., whether the penalty was for ‘concealment of income’ or ‘for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’, thereby rendering the initiations and penalty invalid. 7.1 In this regard, Ld. AR has placed before

Park View Automotives Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 19(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5711/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13 Park View Automotives P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, S-606, School Block, Ward 19(3), Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecp3499H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca & Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 Order Per Madhumita Roy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

satisfied that assessee has concealed particulars of his income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income as aforesaid within the meaning of explanation 1 to the sub section (1) of the section 271(1)(c) of the Income

Yata Ramchander, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1722/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1617 & 1722/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Kesireddy Ravinder Reddy, Uppal, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 039. Ward-11(1, Pan Apypk7089Q Vs. Signature Towers, Yata Ramchander, Hyderabad - 500084. Uppal, Hyderabad. Pin -500039. Telangana. Pan Acvpy9822D Telangana. (Appellants) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275

there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO stating that there is a violation of section 269SS, which caused escapement of income OR concealment of income. in the absence of such a satisfaction by the Assessing Officer in the case of assessee, the learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order