“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

Abc Buildware India (P) Limited, Kannur vs. ITO, Circle-1, Kannur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 389/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 20 of 165 mere reorganization of a business transaction in a lawful manner cannot be grounds for presuming concealment of income. These precedents underscore that genuine business adjustments, such as those made for damaged goods, should not be deemed suppressive actions unless clear evidence of intent

Bhavya Marketing, Chennai vs. The ACIT, Corporate Circle-2(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1069/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1069/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 M/S. Bhavya Marketing, The Assistant Commissioner 2/7, Amman Koil Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Metha Nagar, Corporate Circle 2(4), Chennai – 600 029. Chennai. Pan: Aaufa 4751A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

ought to have appreciated that the additions were made on arbitrary basis without any corroborative evidence, therefore the addition cannot be attributed to concealment of income u/s.271(1)(c) and hence penalty levied be deleted. 6. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds of appeal at the time ... assessment completed, initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and issued notice on 29.09.2021 for concealment of income. Since there was no response from the assessee side to the notice issued, the AO levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 01.04.2022 amounting to Rs.3

Pankaj Chandrakant Pimple, Borivali (West), Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1577/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56Section 56(2)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM ITA

Access Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai

ITA 601/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Access Diamonds The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Office No.15, Floor- Central Circle-7(1), Mezzanine, Aayakar Bhavan, Laxmidas Khimji Market, Vs. Mumbai 36/38, Kalbadevi Road, Vittalwadi, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aahca0551C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R

Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealment of income. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, the AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.4,43,175/- being

Bhaveshkumar Shantilal Jani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1321/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40a

facts in upholding penalty on the addition of Rs.1,81,725/- being difference in stock for alleged furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income in as much as that there is no such default. 2. He has erred in upholding the penalty partly without considering the facts that submission dated ... Assessing Officer levied penalty vide order dated 23.03.2020 and mentioned that the initiation of penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income for all the issues including that of addition of 20% of balance of Sundry Creditors, stock difference and non-deduction

Udyogi International Private Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2114/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the penalty though there was no concealment of income from the side of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submits that the AO imposed penalty only on this account the assessee did not prefer ... demand. The penalty proceedings have been initiated on the ground that wrong declaration of the list in the audited financials does amount to concealment of income as such loss. It has been held that in the penalty proceeding that the loss is also income and if claimed wrongly

Indian Chronicle Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

upholding the order levying penalty of Rs.98,79,990 u/s. 271(1)(c) on the ground that the appellant was guilty of concealment of income inasmuch as it had failed to show in its return the total income pursuance to Section 115JB and instead, merely returned total income ... been able to make up his mind as to whether penalty proceeding was initiated for furnishing “inaccurate particulars of income” or for “concealment of income”. He further submitted that when the charge for levy of penalty was not clearly mentioned in the notice, then the ITA No. 1275/Ahd/2012 [Indian Chronicle

ITO Ward 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Malvika Herbopharma Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4594/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mrs. Suby Srivastava

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 68

total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income on this issue are initiated separately.” 4.2 The Assessing Officer accordingly made addition of Rs.4,25,55,000/- as unexplained cash credit in terms of section

Dakshinamoorthy Kumaresan, Thiruvarur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvarur

ITA 2452/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

only after issuance of notice u/s 148, penalty proceedings vide notice dated 25.05.2023 u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated by the AO for concealment of income. The assessee filed his response during the penalty proceedings, citing his ignorance of law as he was stately not aware that his residential status ... income' whereas the penalty order of the Id. Assessing Officer dated 15.03.2024 stated that the penalty has been levied on account of 'concealment of income.. The Id. AR further contended that order imposing penalty has to be made only on ground of which penalty proceedings has been initiated

Pumpkin Pictures Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -2, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4197/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Bhosle, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

adjournment sought by the Appellant Company. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer had passed the Impugned Order without stating the nature and amount of concealment of income in the show cause notice issued to the Appellant Company or even in the Impugned Order. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) had erred ... total income had been made on estimated basis which is purely a guess work of Assessing Officer and there is no wilful concealment of income. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. Assessing Officer had erred in not considering the case laws submitted by Appellant Company before passing the Impugned

Snigdha Saluja, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-30(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3820/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Kriti Bindal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

perusal of assessment order dated 25.11.2016 reveals that AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars within meaning of Explanation 1 to Sub section (1) of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the outset

Jagroop Singh, Barnala vs. ITO, W-1, Barnala

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is treated as dismissed

ITA 217/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105946628(1) Dt. 08/01/2024 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2012-13 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2011 To 31/03/2012. 2. Factual Matrix

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 246Section 250(6)Section 253Section 271

remain unexplained and are added to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have initiated for concealment of income and penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) have been initiated for non- compliance of notice

Pn Securities Private Limited vs. ACIT Circle - 19(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in very terms

ITA 121/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271(1)(c)

hardly dispute that such a debatable issue of addition arising from change in method of accounting would not per se amount to either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income being a bona fide mistake, and therefore, I quote CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts

Nikhil Vijendra Jain, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 1450/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 271A

aside the additions of Rs.37,54,170/- to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Thus, at this juncture, there are no additions regarding concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars. Once the quantum addition is set-aside there are no legs for penalty to stand. However, it is also observed

Vijaykumar Shreevishnu Toshniwal, Akola vs. ITO Ward-3, Akola

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

ITA 314/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

learned A.O. erred in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 at Rs. 18,29,040/- without there being any concealment of income at the hands of assessee. 7. The levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs.18,29,040/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive

Mr. Abhijit K. Avarrsekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -6(12)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee dismissed

ITA 3746/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Apurv Gandhi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

improvement is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee did not furnish any inaccurate particular of income nor concealed any income. Inadvertently, the interest cost and the BMC fees could not be claimed as cost of improvement in the return filed pursuant to the notice ... then declared such income in a subsequent return filed after the date of search, would it be deemed that the assessee had concealed his income. In other words, the assets seized during the search must relate to the income of the particular assessment year whose return is filed after

Aahvan Agencies Limited (Now Merged With Aagam Agencies P. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1530/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumaraahvan Agencies Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (Now Merged With Aagam Income-Tax, Agencies (P.) Limited), Circle-1(1)(1), 1St Floor, Akshay, 53, Shrimali Ahmedabad Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 [Pan : Aacca 3738 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy ... High Courts, since the Assessing Officer has not been specified u/s 274 as to whether penalty is proposed for alleged ‘concealment of income’ OR ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income’, the penalty levied is hereby obliterated. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order

Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Thiruvananhapuram

ITA 171/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dijo Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

only a technical violation u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act and nothing to indicate Page 10 of 14 that there is concealment of income resulting in underreporting of income and the legal fiction created u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be extended to the levy of penalty. c. The statutory

Kag India Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Circle -2, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1366/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 263Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)Section 271(1)

Ld.PCIT in that case, to the extent that Assessing Officer in the assessment order has made a finding that there was concealment of income, whereas there was no such finding of fact made by Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court held that the Ld.PCIT

Finesse Jewels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 1249/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalfinesse Jewels Private Limited, A-467 Jaipur, Vidhyut Nagar, Jaipur, Ajmer Road- 302 021. Pan No.: Aabcf 4438R ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jaipur – 302 021. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, DR

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 is void ab-initio deserves to be quashed as no satisfaction was recorded with reference to concealment of income. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the penalty