← 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

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1654/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri B. S. Balachandran, Advocate
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

without appreciating the fact that Appellant has not made any willful attempt to evade tax and there is no concealment of income. 8. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty without appreciating that the Appellant has voluntarily declared the income to buy peace with the Department ... without appreciating the fact that Appellant has not made any willful attempt to evade tax and there is no concealment of income. 8. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty without appreciating that the Appellant has voluntarily declared the income to buy peace with the Department

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1632/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

were issued to the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst. year 2014-15 to 2016-17 for the concealment of Income & u/s 270A of the Act for the Asst. year 2017-18 & 2018-19 for under reporting of income. All the show cause notices were ... assessee & levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst. year 2014-15 to 2016-17 for the concealment of Income & u/s 270A of the Act for the Asst. year 2017-18 & 2018-19 for under reporting of income. 3.2 Aggrieved by the penalty orders

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1631/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

were issued to the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst. year 2014-15 to 2016-17 for the concealment of Income & u/s 270A of the Act for the Asst. year 2017-18 & 2018-19 for under reporting of income. All the show cause notices were ... assessee & levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst. year 2014-15 to 2016-17 for the concealment of Income & u/s 270A of the Act for the Asst. year 2017-18 & 2018-19 for under reporting of income. 3.2 Aggrieved by the penalty orders

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1630/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

were issued to the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst. year 2014-15 to 2016-17 for the concealment of Income & u/s 270A of the Act for the Asst. year 2017-18 & 2018-19 for under reporting of income. All the show cause notices were ... assessee & levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst. year 2014-15 to 2016-17 for the concealment of Income & u/s 270A of the Act for the Asst. year 2017-18 & 2018-19 for under reporting of income. 3.2 Aggrieved by the penalty orders

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

were issued to the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst. year 2014-15 to 2016-17 for the concealment of Income & u/s 270A of the Act for the Asst. year 2017-18 & 2018-19 for under reporting of income. All the show cause notices were ... assessee & levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst. year 2014-15 to 2016-17 for the concealment of Income & u/s 270A of the Act for the Asst. year 2017-18 & 2018-19 for under reporting of income. 3.2 Aggrieved by the penalty orders

Sahajanand Medical Technologies Limited, Surat vs. Surat

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

ITA 998/SRT/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 998/Srt/2024 (Ay 2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Sahajanand Medical Technologies Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. Nr. Dabholi Char Rasta, Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat, Room बनाम Ved Road, No.602, 6Th Floor, Vs Surat-395 004 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, [Pan : Aafcs 7694 L] Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

that no reply was furnished by assessee. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of its particulars which leads to concealment of income and levied penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded on both disallowances. The Assessing Officer worked out both penalties of Rs.4

Shri Girja Shankar, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(5), Lucknow

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/LKW/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bank account in cash. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee for concealment of income and imposed a penalty of Rs.22,37,910/-. Aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried both Page 2 of 4 Page

Shri Girja Shankar, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(5), Lucknow

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 132/LKW/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bank account in cash. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee for concealment of income and imposed a penalty of Rs.22,37,910/-. Aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried both Page 2 of 4 Page

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-2 New Delhi, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

original return. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c) is Premature o The initiation of penalty proceedings for alleged concealment of income is premature and without proper justification. PRAYER: The appellant respectfully prays that:  The addition of ₹1,54,00,000/- as undisclosed short-term capital gain

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

original return. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c) is Premature o The initiation of penalty proceedings for alleged concealment of income is premature and without proper justification. PRAYER: The appellant respectfully prays that:  The addition of ₹1,54,00,000/- as undisclosed short-term capital gain

Pravin Harchandrai Agarwal (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. Income Tax Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the assessee succeeds in the present appeal

ITA 4751/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Haresh The Income Tax Officer, Mulchandani Ward, 19 (3) (1), 4-C Ajanta Apartments, M L Vs. Piramal Chamber, Dhanukar Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400013. Mumbai – 40026 Pan – Aadpm 3393 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin Khinchi, Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Along With His Uncle Had Purchased A Flat In Iscon Platinum, Ahmedabad On A Consideration Of Rs. 59,30,000/- Through Cheques. Subsequently, Search Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing, In The Case Of Jp Iscon

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin KhinchiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

added to the total income u/s. 69 of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act are initiated separately for concealment of Income. (Addition: Rs.19,65,150/-) 4. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed appeal with Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed

Tiriyogi Narayan Singh, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1863/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

which, in fact, were related to Assessment Years prior to AY 2006-07. Therefore, in our view, it is not a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The impugned penalty thus, is not sustainable and the same is accordingly, ordered to be deleted ... made by the AO on ad hoc basis. It is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income inviting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, most of the disallowances have been set aside by the Tribunal. In view of this

Tiriyogi Narayan Singh, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1862/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

which, in fact, were related to Assessment Years prior to AY 2006-07. Therefore, in our view, it is not a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The impugned penalty thus, is not sustainable and the same is accordingly, ordered to be deleted ... made by the AO on ad hoc basis. It is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income inviting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, most of the disallowances have been set aside by the Tribunal. In view of this

ITO (It), Ward 2(1), Chennai vs. Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1326/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1), #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.SamyukthaFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessee did not disclose the transaction either in regular return or in return filed in reassessment proceedings. Such non- disclosure amount to concealment of income. Had the case not been reopened, entire gains would have escaped the tax liability thereby avoiding payment of tax of Rs.456.94 Lacs. Considering the same

Naveen Kumar, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Industrial Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 4160/MUM/2024[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal SethiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

entire addition right from assessment stage to the Tribunal was merely on estimations. There is no definite finding on the quantum of concealment of income. It is an accepted legal position that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on additions made merely on estimations is unsustainable ... that penalty is not attracted on estimated additions. In that view of the matter, we find no justification imposing penalty for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. We respectfully relied on the order of the co-ordinate bench in case of Fancy Diamonds

Girdharilal Motilal Agrawal, Buldana vs. ITO Ward-1, Khamgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 332/NAG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

concealment/ inaccurate particulars. Again this stand of the appellant is not right as in the penalty notice the AO has ticked Concealment of income making it clear as to which limb the penalty notice pertains to. In view of the above facts, the penalty levied by the A.O. is hereby ... total income assessed.” 9. The Assessing Officer has not clearly established whether the penalty has been levied on account of concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned A.R. submitted that penalty show cause notice was also vague and relevant limb was not marked/ struck

ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Bgsctpl-Mskel(Jv), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 634/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra P. Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

Assessing Officer was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer, was also confirmed ... decided in favour of the assessee, there is no basis for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The order passed by ITAT dated 07.11.2024 has been produced before us for our records. It would

Kalpana Kannangath Kutty, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissionr of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4896/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Kalpana Kannangath Kutty Assistant Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 4506, 45Th Floor, Tower 4, Tax Circle – 112(1), Mumbai Vs. Crescent Bay, Jerbai Wadia Road, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Agipk4160H (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Present) A/W. Ms. Sneha More Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr,. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2006-07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant & In Law Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Upholding The Infructuous Penalty Of Rs. 5,89,279/- Wrongly Levied For A.Y. 2006-07. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant & In Law Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Considering The Penalty Order Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Ld. Ao Prior To Passing Of Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Which Is Dated 19.12.2008. 2 Kalpana Kannangath Kutty

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Present) a/w. Ms. Sneha MoreFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr,. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 40

merits, the ld. AO has failed to record proper satisfaction as to which limb the penalty has been levied i.e., whether for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5 Kalpana Kannangath Kutty It is settled proposition of law that the ld. AO should be precise

Karan Rajan Bahl, Mumbai vs. ITO -24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4171/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhial & Smt. Renu Jauhrikaran Rajan Bahl V/S. Cit/Nfac, Mumbai बनाम 222, Kewal Industrial Maharashtra Estate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Agppb9301E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHIAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Jindal Padding Private Limited, Village Mannpura, Tehsil Nalag vs. Income Tax Officer Parwano, Parwano

ITA 100/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

under section 115JB and not under the normal provisions, the tax is paid on the income assessed under section 115JB of the Act. Concealment of income would have no role to play and would not lead to tax evasion. Therefore, penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of disallowance