← 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

Kuldeep Kaur, Vill-Deshu Majra, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Mohali

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

ITA 5/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal With The Permission Of The Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

concealed particulars of income accruing during F.Y. 2010-11 (A.Y. 2011- 12), penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income are hereby initiated separately. 3.3 Additionally, the bank statement reflects accrued interest income of Rs. 44,032/- during F.Y. 2010-11. Since no income

V.V. Mohammed, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kannur

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

ITA 862/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sureshkumar C, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

quantifying the share of the assessee amounting to Rs.1,49,00,000 framed the assessment. The AO simultaneously initiated penalty for concealment of income. Thereafter on 30th March, 2012, the AO levied the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars ... further observe in this case that the AO at the time of framing the assessment has alleged that the penalty is initiated for concealment of income, however, at the time of levying of the penalty the AO held that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore

Joseph Mathew Kunnathettu, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 899/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjoseph Mathew Kunnathettu Vs. Acit Circle 3, 14, Trimurthi Apartment, Gandhi 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Nagar, Dombivili (E), Maharashtra – Murbad Road Kalyan, 421 201 Maharashtra – 421 301 Pan: Ailpk9660M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

amount of Rs. 34,60,000/- remained unexplained, accordingly made addition u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income is separately initiated. 3. During the course of re-assessment proceeding for AY 2012-13, the assessee had submitted copy of balance sheet

Satish Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 1526/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, C.A. (Thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 127Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 69A

Penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c), 271F, and 271(1)(b) of the Act were separately initiated for concealment of income, failure to furnish return within prescribed time, and non-compliance with statutory notices, respectively by the Ld.AO. 4. Being aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the assessee

Vipin Verma, Etah vs. CIT(A) Aligarh, Aligarh

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 268/AGR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.268/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Vipin Verma बनाम/ Vs. Ito-3(2) Patiyali Gate, Etah 207001 Etah. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acipv-2736-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31-05-2024 In The Matter Of Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Rs.1.77 Lacs On 22-06-2018. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. Accordingly, The Appeal Was Heard With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Sr. Dr Who Pleaded For Dismissal Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

before us. 3. It is quite clear that the addition of Rs.0.12 Lacs is nothing but estimated disallowance of expenses. No case of concealment of income could be made out against this item. The other item is also reflected in the financial statements. The same was added for want

Jayesh Dolatbhai Patel, Valsad vs. ACIT, Valsad Circle, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 957/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

basis. However, after considering the accounts, the gross profits came at 17.19%. The above facts reveal that this is not a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The gross profits during survey action were offered on estimation basis, whereas, the income was returned after

Ismailbhai Savdibhai Hira, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 207/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

assessee filed submissions and after taking cognizance of the same submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.3,24,355/- in respect of concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before ... that in the initial assessment order the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the concealment of income for the two components which was confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice issued

Ismailbhai Savdibhai Hira, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 206/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

assessee filed submissions and after taking cognizance of the same submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.3,24,355/- in respect of concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before ... that in the initial assessment order the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the concealment of income for the two components which was confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice issued

Ismailbhai Savdibhai Hira, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 205/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

assessee filed submissions and after taking cognizance of the same submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.3,24,355/- in respect of concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before ... that in the initial assessment order the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the concealment of income for the two components which was confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice issued

Ismailbhai Savdibhai Hira, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

assessee filed submissions and after taking cognizance of the same submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.3,24,355/- in respect of concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before ... that in the initial assessment order the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the concealment of income for the two components which was confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice issued

Arumugam Rajalakshmi, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.51/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arumugam Rajalakshmi, The Income Tax Officer, New No.12, Old No.3, Vs. Corporate Ward-5(3), Zackaria Colony, Iii Street, Chennai. Cholaimedu, Chennai – 600 094. [Pan: Agbpr 6558F]

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)(c)

opportunity and dismissing the appeal. 4. The A.O has levied penalty of Rs.15,03,800/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income in ex-parte order passed on 19.01.2022. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty observing that it is evident from the assessment

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Centeral Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 439/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, Maharashtra-400709 V/S. बनाम Ito Central Circle 5(2) Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpg8827D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Page 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c), for concealment of income, by ld. AO of Rs.1,05,214/- being 100% of the tax on income of Rs.4,01,727 on the notional income of Rs. 2,03,727/-representing the annual letting ... adjudication of appeal on merits of the case by the ITAT, xii. levying the penalty @ 100% of tax when there had been no concealment of income and appellant had furnished accurate particulars of income, xiii. ignoring the fact that the appellant had determined the total income as per the provisions

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 438/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, Maharashtra-400709 V/S. बनाम Ito Central Circle 5(2) Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpg8827D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 Page 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c), for concealment of income, by ld. AO of Rs.1,05,214/- being 100% of the tax on income of Rs.4,01,727 on the notional income of Rs. 2,03,727/-representing the annual letting ... adjudication of appeal on merits of the case by the ITAT, xii. levying the penalty @ 100% of tax when there had been no concealment of income and appellant had furnished accurate particulars of income, xiii. ignoring the fact that the appellant had determined the total income as per the provisions

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 437/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c), for concealment of income, by ld. AO of Rs.1,05,214/- being 100% of the tax on income of Rs.4,01,727 on the notional income of Rs.2,03,727/-representing the annual letting value ... adjudication of appeal on merits of the case by the ITAT, xii. levying the penalty @ 100% of tax when there had been no concealment of income and appellant had furnished accurate particulars of income, xiii. ignoring the fact that the appellant had determined the total income as per the provisions

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Centeral Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 436/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani V/S. Ito Central Circle 5(2) Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-400709 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpg8827D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Page 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c), for concealment of income, by ld. AO of Rs.1,05,214/- being 100% of the tax on income of Rs.4,01,727 on the notional income of Rs. 2,03,727/-representing the annual letting ... adjudication of appeal on merits of the case by the ITAT, xii. levying the penalty @ 100% of tax when there had been no concealment of income and appellant had furnished accurate particulars of income, xiii. ignoring the fact that the appellant had determined the total income as per the provisions

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 435/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 435/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2010-11) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 436/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 437/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 438/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 439/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani V/S. Ito Central Circle 5(2) Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-400709 East, Maharashtra-400051 बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpg8827D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Page 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c), for concealment of income, by ld. AO of Rs.1,05,214/- being 100% of the tax on income of Rs.4,01,727 on the notional income of Rs. 2,03,727/-representing the annual letting ... adjudication of appeal on merits of the case by the ITAT, xii. levying the penalty @ 100% of tax when there had been no concealment of income and appellant had furnished accurate particulars of income, xiii. ignoring the fact that the appellant had determined the total income as per the provisions

Vineet Thakar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO(41)(4)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6098/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income. During this proceeding, in response to show cause notices for imposing penalty issued on various dates, the assessee did not make any compliance. Therefore ... notice u/s. 148, it could be reasonably assumed that the assessee would not have come clean. Therefore, it is a clear case of concealment of income as per Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. P a g e | 7 A.Y. 2014-15 Vineet Thakar, Navi Mumbai

Brindaban III Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6064/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Brindaban Iii Co-Operative Income Tax Officer, Ward- Housing Society Ltd., 24(1)(1), Mumbai Poonam Nagar, Mahakali Caves Vs. Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 093 (Pan : Aabab2518A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Kinjal Bhuta, Advocate Revenue : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kinjal Bhuta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act 4 Brindaban III Co operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd., AY 2012-13 was confirmed for alleged concealment of income. Penalty was levied on the difference of tax on total income of Rs. 13,23,770/- and Rs. 2,06,350/-. 4. Case ... been reached coupled with two further facts, viz the authorities have rendered a finding of fact that the respondent- assessee had not concealed its income nor filed inaccurate particulars attributable to capital gains in its regular return of income, the view taken to delete the penalty is a possible view

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT(It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5677/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

particulars in the return of income under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. The assessee submitted that there is no concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee and that the assessee has not wilfully and consciously attempted to furnish the incorrect ... inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 6 SCC 329, this Court explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c), mens

Connerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3753/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

particulars in the return of income under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. The assessee submitted that there is no concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee and that the assessee has not wilfully and consciously attempted to furnish the incorrect ... inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 6 SCC 329, this Court explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c), mens