← 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

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 729/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चडीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 728/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 579/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.582 To 584/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 To 2016-17 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 591/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Maxport India Pvt. Ltd. C/O Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, H. No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh- 160019. स्था.लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaicm9120E अपीलाथ/Appellant बनाम प्रथीय/Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Centre Circle-1, Chandigarh. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.482 & 483/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vaishali Aggarwal C/O Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, H No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh- 160022. स्था.लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaqpa4025M अपीलाथ/Appellant बनाम प्रथीय/Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Centre Circle-1, Chandigarh. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 846/Chd/2023

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

above than the stated amount, the primary burden of proof is on the Revenue to show that there has been an understatement or concealment of income. It is only when such burden has been discharged, would it be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. As apparent ... Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604 wherein this Court held that the primary burden of proof with regard to concealment of income was on the revenue and it was only when the said burden was discharged that reliance could be placed on the valuation report of the DVO. There

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 726/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चडीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG

Maxport India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 583/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चडीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG

Maxport India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 582/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चंड़ीगढ़ यपीठ, चंड़ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh

ITA 506/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG

DCIT, CC 1, Chandigarh vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

ITA 505/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 153DSection 2

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चंडीगढ न्यायपीठ, चंडीगढ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 489/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चंडीगढ़ पीठ, चंडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 480/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चंडीगढ न्यायपीठ, चंडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG

Maruti Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1633/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

dismissing both Assessee and Revenue appeals. Thereafter the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings and imposed Rs.4,07,772/- u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 4. Aggrieved against the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), wherein he has given only one opportunity of hearing dismissed ... wherein it was held as follows: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Estimation of income) - During search excess stock was found on physical verification as against book stock worked out as on date of search - Assessee

Seema Lunawat, Ratlam vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandsaur

ITA 300/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Income Tax Officer-1(2), Indore vs. Divine Infracreation and Trading Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 272/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 68(1)

fully succeeding in appeal and therefore, it could not challenge the finding by the CIT(A), as the assessee being guilty of concealment of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars? 25. While considering the said question, the Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal squarely lost sight of the fact that

Ramji Harakchand Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 30(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5362/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

that in the assessment order ld. AO has initiated penalty on both the charges, i.e., filing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. In the show- cause notice, no specific charge has been specified and even in the penalty order it is not clear on which specific charge ... specifying the charge neither the penalty can be levied nor can it be sustained. In any case it cannot be a case of concealment of income because there is no income which has been concealed, because assessee has duly disclosed the loan received from the company and explined the reasons

Unni Krishnan Vadakkedath Sugathan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4 (3)(1), Bandra

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3604/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 90Section 90A

judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (supra), has also clearly held that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are two separate connotations. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manu ... clearly laid down the principle that it is incumbent upon the AO to come to a positive finding "as to whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income". In the absence of such clear-cut findings, the penalty order is liable to be struck

Bajrang Lal, Ujjain, M.P vs. The Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 637/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

action of the Ld Assessing Officer in reopening the case of the appellant in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income without independent application of mind. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Bajrang Lal, Ujjain, M.P vs. The Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 634/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

action of the Ld Assessing Officer in reopening the case of the appellant in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income without independent application of mind. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Paras Mal Jain, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1469/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR (Thru' V.C.)
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271A

income are different. Thus the Assessing officer while issuing notice has to come to the conclusion that whether is it a case of concealment of income or is it a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported ... page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 taxman 156, has held

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Square vs. Positive Devcon Pvt. Ltd., Sonarpur

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

ITA 1123/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 114Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

case in and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the concealment of income, on which penalty was imposed, was deemed to have been admitted by the assessee by not contesting the original order where addition was made ... account of concealment of income? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee in the absence of any compliance from the assessee either during penalty proceedings or during appellate stage? 3. Whether

DCIT Circle-2, Nagpur vs. M/S Trister Retail Concepts Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, department’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 319/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

justified in deleting the penalty levied on the grounds that no deliberate attempt was made by the assessee to conceal the income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income, when, the assessee had made erroneous claim on account of loss. on sale of assets in return of of income ... Rs.1,25,428/-.The AO rightfully added undis- closed income of Rs.1,25,428 and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing the income. The reply filed by assesseeis perused but the same is not acceptable in light of above discussion. Therefore on the facts and circumstances

Desh Raj Jakhar, Gordhanpura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Neem Ka Thana

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

ITA 1261/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shaffi Mohd. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 5Section 69

erred in initiation the penalty u/s 271(1)(c)." That the Ld. Assessing officer is initiated the penalty proceedings on account of concealment of income of Income. In this connection it is stated nothing has been concealed, the assessee has submitted the detailed submission as well as submission