← 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

Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 2013/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(CIT DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 6

gross receipts and other direct incomes of the assessee during the relevant assessment year. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated separately for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 5. The Ld.AR further argued that the profit percentage of the assessee's business varies from 1.97% to 1.51% year

Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 2011/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(CIT DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 6

gross receipts and other direct incomes of the assessee during the relevant assessment year. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated separately for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 5. The Ld.AR further argued that the profit percentage of the assessee’s business varies from 1.97% to 1.51% year

Mahesh Vrajlal Babaria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax-Officer, Circle-18(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1867/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271

Page |5 ITA No. 1867/Mum/2024 Mahesh Vrajlal Babaria; A.Y. 2009-10 expenses/indirect common expenses incurred in relation to earn exempt income. 12.What is concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of such income as contemplated by Section 271(1)(c), has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Parin Engineers, Mumbai vs. Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1725/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271F

income of the assessee under the head income from business and profession. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act, for concealment of income and penalty proceeding u/s. 271F of the Act for failing to file the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 were separately initiated. . Aggrieved

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1 (2), Mumbai, Piramal Chembers

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4546/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Assessing Officer Through Mr. Manish H Mehta, Ca & Filed Details Called For. After Examining The Response Of The Assessee, Learned Assessing Officer Added In The Assessee’S Income For A.Y. 2012-13, Unspent Accumulation Of Rs. 1,45,01,730/- Of Earlier Years For A.Y. 2006-07. Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Were Also Initiated Against The Assessee For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars & For Concealment Of Income. Aggrieved By Assessment Order, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed Assessee’S Appeal For Non Prosecution.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(C)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars and for concealment of income. Aggrieved by assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal for non prosecution. 3. Assessee filed this appeal before

Praful Devji Galia, Mumbai vs. Rajnish K Sinha, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4278/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 69

added back to the total income of the assessee. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act, were also initiated for concealment of income. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal at the admission stage for want

K. S. Velusamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

Appeals stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 125/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.123/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri K.S. Velusamy Dcit बनाम/ #41, Ayyasamy Street, Central Circle-3(3), Shanmugam Road,West Tambaram, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 045. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agupv-1436-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

statements made by the assessee during survey proceedings. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated against quantum addition u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. During penalty proceedings, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2015. In the absence of any reply, another notice was issued ... business receipts as found during survey. The additions were on the basis of impounded material. Therefore, Ld. AO rightly levied penalty for concealment of income which resulted out of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, suitable directions were given to Ld. AO to reduce the penalty in terms

K. S. Velusamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

Appeals stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 124/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.123/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri K.S. Velusamy Dcit बनाम/ #41, Ayyasamy Street, Central Circle-3(3), Shanmugam Road,West Tambaram, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 045. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agupv-1436-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

statements made by the assessee during survey proceedings. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated against quantum addition u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. During penalty proceedings, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2015. In the absence of any reply, another notice was issued ... business receipts as found during survey. The additions were on the basis of impounded material. Therefore, Ld. AO rightly levied penalty for concealment of income which resulted out of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, suitable directions were given to Ld. AO to reduce the penalty in terms

K. S. Velusamy, Chennnai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

Appeals stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 123/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.123/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri K.S. Velusamy Dcit बनाम/ #41, Ayyasamy Street, Central Circle-3(3), Shanmugam Road,West Tambaram, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 045. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agupv-1436-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

statements made by the assessee during survey proceedings. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated against quantum addition u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. During penalty proceedings, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2015. In the absence of any reply, another notice was issued ... business receipts as found during survey. The additions were on the basis of impounded material. Therefore, Ld. AO rightly levied penalty for concealment of income which resulted out of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, suitable directions were given to Ld. AO to reduce the penalty in terms

Shri Khatu Shyam Builders, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act without specifically pointing out in the show cause notice, whether the penalty was proposed on concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts ... were even made during the quantum proceedings, which fact is undisputed. There was no attempt on the part of the assessee firm to conceal any income, by making excessive claim of the expenditure. 2.6 The assessee firm was under a bona fide belief that such expenses were not to form

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1872/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH

M/S. L.B. Kunjir, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged

M/S. L.B. Kunjir, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune vs. Lb Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged

DCIT, Pune vs. L B Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged

DCIT Circle 7, Bodhi Tower Salisbury Park vs. L B Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 959/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 30.3.2016 in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal ? ii. Whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent/the Assessing Officer is legal and valid? ITA Nos.957 ... first instance, while replying to the penalty show cause notice dated 30.3.2016, the assessee raised a specific plea that there was no concealment of income, that he had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and that the notice was not proper. Therefore, the phraseology, which was adopted by the assessee

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 958/CHNY/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 30.3.2016 in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal ? ii. Whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent/the Assessing Officer is legal and valid? ITA Nos.957 ... first instance, while replying to the penalty show cause notice dated 30.3.2016, the assessee raised a specific plea that there was no concealment of income, that he had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and that the notice was not proper. Therefore, the phraseology, which was adopted by the assessee

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 957/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 30.3.2016 in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal ? ii. Whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent/the Assessing Officer is legal and valid? ITA Nos.957 ... first instance, while replying to the penalty show cause notice dated 30.3.2016, the assessee raised a specific plea that there was no concealment of income, that he had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and that the notice was not proper. Therefore, the phraseology, which was adopted by the assessee

Ampa Palaniappan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

ITA 1371/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1370/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1371/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ampa Palaniappan Acit बनाम/ Non-Corporate Circle-2(1) 48/19, Raman Street, T. Nagar Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aippp-3546-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Mukundan (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mukundan (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee’s quantum appeal was dismissed, Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs.48.40 Lacs vide order dated 05-02-2022 on the allegation of concealment of income. During appeal proceedings, the assessee, inter-alia, relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts ... bench held as under: - 6. We are of the considered opinion that the two limbs viz. ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ and ‘concealment of income’ are separate and distinct charges. It is quite clear that though impugned penalty has been initiated in the assessment order, however, in the notice