← 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. D.K. Industries, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1417/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

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

what was the exact charge levied against him as the notice reveals that a proceeding started on both the accounts i.e. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income that makes the notice invalid and void. The ld. Counsel for the assessee cited the following decisions ... proceedings are that while completing assessment proceedings, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction as to whether the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in order to initiate penalty proceedings. The section has two limbs i.e. penalty is leviable where the assessee

Dcitcc6.2, Mumbai vs. Top Class Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee i

ITA 974/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. CIT DR
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

these loans of Rs.46,90,849/- is disallowed as they are not genuine payments. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income.” 7. The AO therefore on the aforesaid reasons, treated the unsecured loans amounting to Rs.12,59,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits

Top Class Capital Markets Private Limited, Bombay Mutual Building, Fort vs. ACIT Central Circle 6 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee i

ITA 709/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

these loans of Rs.46,90,849/- is disallowed as they are not genuine payments. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income." The AO therefore on the aforesaid reasons, treated the unsecured loans amounting to Rs.12,59,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits

Sara Investments, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-28(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1133/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

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

Appellant as to whether the Ld. the specific charge against the Appellant as to whether the Ld. AO considered it a case of concealment of income or furnishing AO considered it a case of concealment of income or furnishing AO considered it a case of concealment of income or furnishing

Jayantilal Dinesh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-52, Mumbai

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

ITA 4725/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri VimalPunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 274Section 68Section 69C

erred in initiating the penalty proceeding u/s 274 r.w.s and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. The appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at/or before

Dilip Kapur, Pondicherry vs. ACIT, NFAC, Circle 1, Pondicherry

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 984/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 984/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dilip Kapur The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Saint Martin Street, Income Tax, Pondicherry (Ut), Circle -1, Pondicherry – 605 001. Pondicherry – 605 003. [Pan: Adspd-4530-H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently ... well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

income and also failed to pay the due taxes, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 was initiated for concealment of income.” 6. Further in the order, while imposing the penalty, the Ld. AO has mentioned as under: - “3.1. The assessee submission is considered ... case laws given below: CIT V. HANDLOOM EMPORIUM [2006] 282 ITR 431(ALL.) Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is applicable even when concealment of income is admitted by filing a revised return after detection of concealment. M. S. MOHAMMED MARZOOK (LATE) AND ANOTHER (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) v. INCOME

Daga Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle -18, Delhi

ITA 790/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roydaga Commodities Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-18 Private Limited Ara Centre, Jhandewalan 114 New Delhi House, 27 Delhi Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi - 110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcs5420N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

therein. Under this fact and circumstances of the matter, it is argued that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that there was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee though sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings, the same has not been adhered ... sure while issuing show cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whether he had to proceed on the basis of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate P a g e | 3 Daga Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, CC-18 particulars of the said income as is evident

Ashok Kumar Grover, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-61(1), Delhi

ITA 2893/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roysh. Ashok Kumar Grover Vs. Acit 19, Siri Fort Road Circle 61(1) New Delhi-110049 Delhi-110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagpg6935L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

recorded therein. Under this fact and circumstances of the matter, he argued that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that there was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee though sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings, the same has not been adhered ... sure while issuing show cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whether he had to proceed on the basis of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of the said income as is evident from the order dated 29.11.2016. The initiation of proceedings is violation

Ayyappankavu Chandrasekharan Vijayalakshmi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-14(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2136/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2136/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ayyappankavu Chandrasekharan Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayalakshmi, 4, Thiruvengadam Income Tax, Street, West Mambalam, Corporate Circle 14(1), Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadpv3516D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 22 Days. On Perusal Of The Petition Filed In Support Of Notarized Affidavit, Submissions Of The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find The Reasons Explained By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

want of vouchers and the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. The ld. AR argued that no penalty is maintainable for non- furnishing the details as the assessee truly disclosed the transaction ... Syndicate Shipping Co. (supra), wherein, it was held that for non-submissions of proper voucher for the expenditure incurred could not amount to concealment of income by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

Asst CIT Cen Cir 20 Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Nissan Copper P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the all 10 appeals of the assessee and the revenue are 8

ITA 2239/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &
Section 250Section 40Section 43B

assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s.801IB on non-801B income of Rs.10,79,823/-, thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income leading to concealment of income." 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in stating that the A.O. has not initiated

Nissan Copper Ltd, Gujrat vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, the all 10 appeals of the assessee and the revenue are 8

ITA 3974/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &
Section 250Section 40Section 43B

assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s.801IB on non-801B income of Rs.10,79,823/-, thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income leading to concealment of income." 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in stating that the A.O. has not initiated

Nissan Copper Ltd, Gujrat vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, the all 10 appeals of the assessee and the revenue are 8

ITA 3972/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &
Section 250Section 40Section 43B

assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s.801IB on non-801B income of Rs.10,79,823/-, thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income leading to concealment of income." 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in stating that the A.O. has not initiated

Nissan Copper Ltd, Gujrat vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, the all 10 appeals of the assessee and the revenue are 8

ITA 3971/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &
Section 250Section 40Section 43B

assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s.801IB on non-801B income of Rs.10,79,823/-, thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income leading to concealment of income." 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in stating that the A.O. has not initiated

Nissan Copper Ltd, Gujrat vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, the all 10 appeals of the assessee and the revenue are 8

ITA 3970/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &
Section 250Section 40Section 43B

assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s.801IB on non-801B income of Rs.10,79,823/-, thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income leading to concealment of income." 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in stating that the A.O. has not initiated

ACIT 17 & 28, Mumbai vs. Nissan Copper Ltd

In the result, the all 10 appeals of the assessee and the revenue are 8

ITA 5577/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &
Section 250Section 40Section 43B

assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s.801IB on non-801B income of Rs.10,79,823/-, thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income leading to concealment of income." 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in stating that the A.O. has not initiated

Sukumar Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 26, New Delhi

ITA 2101/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Dcit Central Circle 26 M/S Sukumar Buildwell Private Limited, 914, 9Th New Delhi Floor, D-Mall, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi- 110034 Pan :Aaics7517H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Shilpi Jain, Ca Department By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr, Dr

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

alleges non-disclosure of full particulars of income and furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. Further that while imposing penalty the allegation was concealment of income by the assessee as recorded therein. Under this fact and circumstances of the matter, she argued that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer ... sure while issuing show cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whether he had to proceed on the basis of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of the said income as is evident from the order dated 29.03.2016. The initiation of proceedings is violation

Sajid Dastagir Sayyed, Latur vs. Ward 1 Latur, Latur

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

ITA 1180/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80A

Thus, the addition made by the A.O. is unjustified and accordingly the penalty is not leviable on the same as there is no concealment of income. 3. The section 80A state at "Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion jewellery ... Hence, the addition made by the A.O. is unjustified and accordingly the penalty is not leviable on the same as there is no concealment of income. 4. The appellant is in the business of transportation and also has sold cement in the year under appeal. The appellant has maintained books

Income Tax Officer, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. Rajasthan Metal Syndicate, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2637/MUM/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

being 12.50 % of the said bogus purchase. The ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and levied penalty of ₹2,22,463 being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 6. Aggrieved the assessee was an appeal before the first ... authority, who vide order dated 20.02.2024, deleted the impugned penalty by holding that addition made on estimate basis cannot be held to be concealment of income. 7. The Revenue is an appeal before us challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). (A.Y. 2010-11& 2011-12) ITO vs. Rajasthan

Income Tax Officer, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. Rajasthan Metal Syndicate, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2636/MUM/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

being 12.50 % of the said bogus purchase. The ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and levied penalty of ₹2,22,463 being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 6. Aggrieved the assessee was an appeal before the first ... authority, who vide order dated 20.02.2024, deleted the impugned penalty by holding that addition made on estimate basis cannot be held to be concealment of income. 7. The Revenue is an appeal before us challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). (A.Y. 2010-11& 2011-12) ITO vs. Rajasthan